library.word-life.orglibrary.word-life.org/subjects/apologetics/savonarola... · 2014-07-23 ·...

Girolamo Savonarola – The Forgotten Father of Apologetics i

James E Dainty

Mentor – Dr Johnson Philip

Thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

1st November 2008

Girolamo Savonarola – The Forgotten Father of Apologetics

An examination of the Apologetic Purpose, Pretext and Argument in the

Teaching of Girolamo Savonarola (1452 – 1498) based on his writing –

The Triumph of the Cross

Girolamo Savonarola – The Forgotten Father of Apologetics i

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I give thanks to God for all those who have helped and inspired me in the field of

Apologetics. Among them are some great thinkers and leaders of the 20th and 21st

Centuries, but also Savonarola from the 15th Century. I offer this thesis in the hope

that it might be an inspiration and resource for others.

My sincere thanks are offered to my wife, Angela and to my daughter-in-law, Marney

Dainty, for their editing and proof reading, and to my daughter Gillian and son Stephen

for their love and encouragement.

DEDICATION

This work is dedicated to my two best friends – my wife Angela and my „soul mate’

Bishop Ng Moon Hing, Bishop of West Malaysia


ii

ABSTRACT

Savonarola was a gifted preacher and thinker of the 15th Century. In his writings we

discover him to be a „Father of Apologetics’. His method and approach to the defence of

the Faith is superior to much of what is on offer today. His premises and purposes are

stated with clarity and match the needs and situation of the 21st Century as much as

they did those of his day. The needs he identified, still need to be addressed. The need

to –

Confirm the faith of people whose belief has been shaken

Prepare unbelievers for the reception of supernatural enlightenment,

Enable the faithful to refute the arguments of non-believers

Expose the irrationality of non-believers’ arguments so that simple and

uneducated people are released from the deception played on them.1

In his major work, The Triumph of the Cross, his sharp analytical mind and

comprehensive understanding created a totally original presentation of the philosophy of

Christianity. This was done with a simple appeal to natural reason. „Not that faith, the

spontaneous gift of God, can be acquired through reason,’ wrote Savonarola, ‘but

because reason is a useful weapon with which to combat unbelievers or open to them

the way of salvation. It is an instrument to arouse the lukewarm and give strength to the

faithful.’

He uses the motif of a triumphal chariot moving in celebration through the world. Seated

in the chariot is Christ, who was crucified but who is now claiming his kingdom.

Surrounding him are all those who have been affected by his victory. Saints and Martyrs,

people of every nation whose lives have been transformed as well as false religions and

philosophies, which have been vanquished. From this integrated and comprehensive

image – not based on isolated proofs – he provides a strong rational apologetic.

His method avoids the tendency of trying to prove an intelligent designer; unrelated to

the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. It avoids giving a Christian apologetic in a

way that avoids all association with the world‟s criticism of the Church and Christians.

And it deals with the weaknesses and loss of nerve that have characterised Apologetics

through much of the 20th Century. His teaching is not one among several apologetic

tools - but the key to unifying them all.

The concluding part of his work compares the Christian Worldview with the others of his

day and again we find a remarkable match with the competing explanations of life and

the universe, on offer today. His refuting of humanistic philosophies, astrology,

polytheistic religions, Judaism, Islam and Christian heresies and cults is equally effective

in addressing secular humanism, postmodernism, eastern religions, the New Age

movement, cults and the impact of Islam.

Some Apologetics take us to a first cause only; Savonarola takes us to the Cross of

Christ to meet the very Son of God as Saviour and Lord.

1 TOTC – Page 81


iii

MAJOR REFERENCE WORKS

The two major reference works which provide the most comprehensive and scholarly

biographies and evaluation of the influence of Savonarola are those by Pasquale Villari

and Pierre Van Paassen.

The Life and Times of Girolamo Savonarola by Professor Pasquale Villari, was translated

from the Italian by Linda Villari and published in London by T. Fisher Unwin in 1888.

Pasquale Villari 1826–1917, was an Italian historian and statesman. He was Minister of

Education (1889–92). His work on Savonarola gained him an appointment (1859) as

teacher of modern history at Pisa. He also taught at Florence.

A Crown of Fire: The Life and Times of Girolamo Savonarola was written by Pierre Van

Paassen and published by Scribner in New York in 1960.

FOOTNOTE CITATIONS

In the footnotes the citations from Savonarola‟s Triumph of the Cross are referenced as

TOTC. Those from The Life and Times of Girolamo Savonarola are referenced as Villari

and those from A Crown of Fire are referenced as Paassen.

SUPPORTING TEXT – THE TRIUMPH OF THE CROSS

Reason for the Text

Because the text of The Triumph of the Cross is not available in English, I have produced

a revision and re-writing of the text based on John Proctor‟s translation from the Italian.

This is available for downloading or reading online at –

http://www.theologytools.com/

With this text I have also included an Introduction and background notes. Some parts of

that material are duplicated in this thesis, to enable each document to stand-alone; with

each as a complete entity.

Method in revising and rewriting

In order to maximize the benefit of this wonderful document I have made certain

updates to the language, grammar and style. This has been done in a manner that seeks

to preserve the author‟s original tone and message and to facilitate ease of

comprehension of complex arguments.

Where Savonarola uses more obscure technical terms or words, I have referred to the

Italian text and translated the word or phrase into current English usage. On the few

occasions when this has been necessary it has been done with the help of Italian

scholars and reference works, giving due weight to the 15th Century context of the

original work.

http://www.theologytools.com/


iv

Where I have revised the wording of key ideas and technical words used by Savonarola,

this has been indicated in the footnotes provided. It has only been done for the sake of

clarity and never to change the thrust of an argument.

Dynamic Equivalence.

I have used dynamic equivalence to convey the author‟s meaning. This means that an

attempt is made to convey the overall life and power of the author‟s message, rather

than formal equivalence, which seeks to translate word for word. In formal equivalence,

the aim is to find a word with the equivalent force and meaning as the one being

translated. But this is not always possible as exact pairs of words are sometimes not

available. In dynamic equivalence, the focus is not so much on the individual words but

rather on the force and meaning of phrases or sentences. In doing this there is obviously

still a need to note the use of key words and technical terms used by the author. And on

one occasion, I have rearranged the order of the sentences in a paragraph to make the

author‟s argument explicit, for a modern reader.

Savonarola‟s Italian edition is written with each chapter composed of a single paragraph.

This makes intricate arguments even more complex. I have therefore divided the

chapters into paragraphs to clarify the different concepts presented and to stop them all

running into each other.

History of the text

Savonarola‟s passionate heart and acute intellect produced in The Triumph of the Cross,

one of the greatest works of Christian Apologetics. The work was first written2 in Latin

and printed in Florence in 1497, reprinted in 1524, then in Paris in the same year, then

Basle in 1540, in Lyon in 1633, in Grenoble in 1666.

However, as many citizens did not read Latin3 he translated it into Italian, saying that he

had not done this „word for word‟ but had changed some parts, omitted others and

added new material to make the sense clearer. His motive was to prevent anyone

deliberately mistranslating the book, at a time when his teaching was accused of being

filled with heresy. This Italian edition was also produced in 1497, in Florence and

reprinted in Venice in 1531 and again in 1547.

Even his enemies recognised the brilliance of this work, and after his death it was highly

2 His preaching was often loud and powerful, but his actual writing was very small and delicate. His personal Bible is on display in Florence and his closely written comments in the margins really

need the assistance of a magnifying glass to decipher them.

3 It is plain that there is no foundation for the belief expressed by some writers that Latin was commonly understood by the people at that period. But as it was the language of the learned classes throughout Europe, it was naturally employed in all theological and philosophical works, and all the more so because, in order to treat of these themes in Italian, it would have been requisite to coin new phrases and forms of speech, almost, indeed, to create a new language.

Accordingly it was found easier to write first in Latin, and then translate into the vulgar tongue. Villari - Book 1 Ch 8.


v

regarded. In 1640 the brother of Pope Urban VIII, in his will, left his estate of 500 gold

crowns, to reprint this book and to show that Savonarola was innocent of heresy.

An incomplete edition translated from the Italian version, was printed in English in 1661,

by John Field and a copy of this is held at Cambridge University. This edition leaves out

sections but admits to doing so, to make the work more acceptable in a time of

Reformed Theology - a time when the Church of England was publishing the Thirty Nine

Articles, refuting Catholic dogma.

A more complete edition of The Triumph Of The Cross was published in English by

Hodder in London in 1868. This was a translation of the Latin text, by O'Dell Travers

Hill.4 However it is incomplete and the translator has deliberately left out whole chapters.

A précis of part of Travers Hill‟s work was circulated in a volume called Valiant for Truth

published in 1961.5

A further translation into English was made from the Italian text by Father John Proctor,

Provincial of the English Dominicans. This was published by Sands and Company, in

London, in 1901. It carried the imprimatur of the Archbishop of Westminster dated 28

March 1901.

The text I have revised and re-written is based on this full Italian translation by Fr John

Proctor. His work is valuable as the first complete English edition. Unfortunately its tone

clothes Savonarola in the style of a mid-Victorian cleric, which is unfair to the immediacy

of Savonarola‟s writing and unfortunate for us in the 21st Century because it makes the

reading more difficult.

Examples of Proctor‟s anachronistic style are the stilted use of the semi-colon, which

flood the text, his use of archaic words when adequate current ones were available, his

phrasing, and Scripture references, which are not in, recognised current formats.

His text also contains many very long sentences, which the modern reader finds

confusing. The difficulty arises when several clauses refer back to previous clauses within

the same sentence. To clarify the argument and make the meaning of the text more

explicit I have broken many of these sentences into smaller units.

It was necessary to provide a new text because the text in English is not readily

available. The Latin texts are now collectors‟ items6 and very few copies of the Hodder or

Sands English editions are extant. A new Italian edition was published in 2001 Il trionfo

della croce. La ragionevolezza della fede: „The Triumph of the Cross. The reasonableness

of faith‟ by Prof. Giorgio Carbone OP and published by Edizioni Studio Domenicano.

4 A copy is held by the British Library, London, UK

5 David Otis Fuller, Ed., VALIANT FOR THE TRUTH, A Treasury of Evangelical Writings, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1961

6 In April 2008 a copy of the Venice Latin Edition of 1506 was on sale for $3,200. The catalogue stated - THIRD EDITION of Savonarola's confession of faith, begun in 1496 and printed in 1497, the year of Savonarola's excommunication. This edition is extremely rare. OCLC locates a single

copy in the United States.


6

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgments

Dedication

Abstract

Major reference works

Supporting Text – THE TRIUMPH OF THE CROSS

a. Reason for the Text

b. Method in revising and rewriting

c. Dynamic Equivalence.

d. History of the text

1. Introduction

2. Proposition

– Savonarola’s Apologetic Schema and Analysis of Worldviews are the

Key to effective 21st Century Apologetics.

3. Girolamo Savonarola – His Context, Culture and Influences

a. The Renaissance In Florence

b. Savonarola – His Birth and Background

c. Savonarola – His Lifestory 1452-1498

4. The Forgotten Father of Apologetics

a. He is the Father of the fullest and clearest Apologetic purpose.

b. He is the Father of the most comprehensive method of presenting the Christian

apologetic as an integrated whole.

c. He is the Father of an approach that is so competent that it is as effective in

dealing with the issues of the 21st Century as it was those of his day of the 15th

Century.

d. He is the Father of the only approach that can provide an answer for the

weaknesses and blunders in present day Apologetics.

5. The Forgotten Father of Apologetics

a. His major work, The Triumph of the Cross, has been unavailable for over one

hundred years. It was known and its teaching valued by the Christian leaders of

the late 19th Century, but now it is unknown.

b. His integrated approach with the whole of Christianity as the Apologetic argument

has been forgotten and lost, by today‟s apologists.

c. Failure to heed his insights and adopt his approach led to a loss of nerve and

confusion in 20th Century Apologetics.

6. His Authority

7. His use of Scripture


7

8. His use of Philosophy

9. His use of Logic

10. His Apologetic Purpose

11. His Apologetic Premises

a. His epistemology compared to 21st Century theories

b. The complexity of religious language

c. Faith, Reason and Revelation

d. God‟s Sovereignty and Free will and Molinism.

e. Faith does not depend upon Apologetic proofs, nor is it created by such proofs

f. His gospel imperative and Fideism

g. To engage in the Apologetic Task has Apostolic authority and commission.

h. Reason alone will be the authority appealed to – not Church, Pope or Bible.

i. The argument to be in the language and thought forms of the hearers.

12. His Apologetic deals with the loss of nerve in current Apologetics

13. His Apologetic deals with the weaknesses and blunders in current

Apologetics

14. His Triumph of the Cross

a. The Motif of Petrarch

b. The work of Averroes

c. Parallel with Romans

d. His writing of the Triumph of the Cross

15. Savonarola’s Schema

16. Savonarola’s Propositions and Proof

17. Evaluation of his Apologetic

– Does he conform to the criteria he set himself?

a. He lived under the direction and Lordship of Christ

b. His argument and schema

c. His gentleness and respect.

d. Personal Bias

18. Evaluation of his Apologetic

– Is my proposition established?

a. Savonarola‟s Apologetic Schema and Analysis of Worldviews are the key to

effective 21st Century Apologetics.

b. Parallels between the 15th and 21st Centuries.

c. His Analysis of Worldviews in the context of 21st Century


8

d. His is not one among several apologetic tools - but the key to unifying them all.

19. It is important that his teaching should be recovered and promoted for the

benefit of the Christian community in the 21st Century.

20. Concluding remarks on the purpose of Apologetics

21. Works Cited and Bibliography


9

1 Introduction

The Illustration of the Elephant

Five blind men investigated an elephant. The first felt the trunk and said, ‘an

elephant is like a large hose.’ The second one touched the tail and stated, ‘an

elephant is like a rope.’ Still another encountered the ear and exclaimed, ‘an

elephant is like canvas.’ The fourth one examined a leg and said, ‘elephants are

like trees.’ Finally, the fifth one felt a side, and said emphatically, ‘elephants are

actually houses!’ Each thought clearly of the elephant in terms of his own too

limited data. 7

This old illustration points out the important truths: incomplete evidence or faulty

methodologies result in contradictions that are more apparent than real, and leave no

concept of the whole being that is the object of enquiry. Sadly, this has been exemplified

in much of the Apologetics of the 20th Century.

These are issues that Savonarola identified and effectively dealt with in The Triumph of

the Cross.

Unique approach – integrated and holistic

What makes his approach unique is that he presents all his evidence as inter-related and

not just cumulative. In doing this he reveals the holistic nature of the Christian

philosophy and divine revelation. This was not an accidental achievement but a carefully

thought through schema.8 He states this objective at the very outset and uses two

illustrations to assert his methodology.

Analogy of astronomical observation

The first illustration he uses is taken from astronomy. He infers that the sages of old

were able to make meaningful observation of the stars because they considered the

heavens as a whole and studied the relationship between each star and the whole mass

of the total stars that could be seen.

Philosophers have tried to understand something of God’s nature, not by looking

at one creature in isolation, but by looking at innumerable objects and the

harmony of the relationships between them. It is possible to do this because of

the mutual dependence of everything in the universe.9

To observe one star in isolation makes it impossible to say much that is meaningful

about its movement, brightness or size. But when considered in relationship to the rest

of the stars then it contributes to our understanding of the whole heavenly host. And it is

possible to say far more about the individual star, too. It is possible to compare and

contrast it with its neighbours and in so doing to say something meaningful about its

movement, brightness and size.

7 John Warwick Montgomery, editor, Evidence For Faith, Probe Books, Dallas 1991, Page 23

8 Schema - an underlying organisational pattern or structure; conceptual framework.

9 TOTC – page 83


10

Savonarola says that we need to take a similar holistic approach in Apologetics.

In the same way, we cannot fully understand the power, wisdom, and goodness

of Christ by contemplating one of His works in isolation. We must bring to mind

all the wonders that He has achieved. As we do, we shall be forced to

acknowledge His divinity, not based on one isolated point, but built on the

foundation of many reasons. Even if we are not convinced by one of His miracles

or teachings in isolation, we cannot (unless we are obstinate) fail to be persuaded

when we consider His works and teaching collectively. 10

The importance of his motif of the Triumph of the Cross as the foundation for

the schema

The second illustration of his schema is the central motif of the whole work. It is the

image of Christ seated in triumph in his chariot and all those affected by his works are

surrounding him. Some are glorified and share the benefit of his triumph; others are his

enemies and false philosophies, which are displayed as vanquished. The purpose of this

motif is to establish the wholeness and harmony of all the works of Christ and the

Apologetic evidence they provide.

Although it may be possible to grasp the mutual dependence of all the marvels of

nature, it is not so easy to grasp the relationship between all the works of Christ,

at once. I have therefore decided to present them using the image of a Triumphal

Chariot. This image should be comprehensible, even to the least intellectual.11

Many of those who have valued this work have failed to recognise the importance of the

motif, which Savonarola asks us to hold constantly in mind. Perhaps this may be due to

the fact that after establishing the motif, he only makes two direct references to it in the

rest of the book. But the way in which he very thoroughly establishes the motif should

alert us to its importance.

This Chariot, which we have described, symbolises a new world, from which shall

spring a new philosophy. The triumphal image of the Chariot recognises that the

First Cause (the Holy Trinity) is invisible and made known to us by what is

visible.12

2 Proposition – Savonarola’s Apologetic Schema and Analysis of

Worldviews are the key to effective 21st Century Apologetics.

I have several propositions that I wish to assert and hope to establish. Most of them are

supporting propositions for the one major assertion that forms the heart of this thesis.

My major proposition is that Savonarola is the forgotten Father of Apologetics and that

recovery of his Apologetic schema and analysis of Worldviews are the key to effective

21st Century Apologetics.

I propose to establish -

10 ibid

11 TOTC – page 83

12 TOTC – pages 83-84


11

a. that Savonarola is a key „Father‟ of Apologetics and that his Apologetic

teaching is original, profound and relevant.

b. that he is a „Forgotten‟ Father of Apologetics and that his relevance has been

„forgotten‟ in the English-speaking world of the 21st Century.

c. that his approach to Scripture, philosophy and logic are relevant and valid

today.

d. that he provides one of the clearest and most powerful definitions of the

Apologetic Purpose

e. that his Apologetic Premises are still valid and sometimes original.

f. that his argument is integrated and holistic – not based on isolated proofs.

g. that his Apologetic deals with the loss of nerve in current Apologetics.

h. that he has provided the clearest understanding of the Apologetic task, the

reasons for undertaking that task, the method of approaching that task and

the place of that task within the grace of God.

i. that his Apologetic deals with the weaknesses and blunders in current

Apologetics

j. that his Apologetic avoids proving an intelligent designer, unrelated to the

God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

k. that he avoids giving us a Christian apologetic in a way that avoids all

association with the world‟s criticism of the Church and Christians.

l. that his soteriology avoids the relativism of a pluralistic and blunted gospel.

m. that his Analysis of Worldviews is the key to effective 21st Century

Apologetics.

n. that his schema is not one among several apologetic tools - but the key to

unifying them all.

o. that it is most important that his teaching should be recovered and promoted

for the benefit of the Christian community in the 21st Century.

3 Girolamo Savonarola – his Context, Culture and Influences

The Renaissance In Florence

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it

was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of

incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the

spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had

nothing before us, we were all going direct to heaven, we were all going direct

the other way.

A Tale of Two Cities, Charles Dickens, (1812 - 1870)

Charles Dickens was writing of another era, but his words vividly capture the atmosphere

in Savonarola‟s 15th Century Florence. Truly it was the best of times and the worst of


12

times. The contrasts were stark.

This was the age of Renaissance. A time of great self-confidence and pride in human

achievement. It was the beginning of Humanism, with man as the centre of the universe

and the measure of all things. This freedom of thought and rejection of religious

scholasticism began what would become the dominant thought form for the whole world

in the 21st Century. 13

There was an explosion of ideas and information. Gutenberg had printed his first Bible,

Caxton had printed Canterbury Tales, Erasmus, Da Vinci, Michelangelo and Thomas More

were contemporaries. In 1492 Columbus had discovered the New World. Spain

conquered Granada, ending the kingdom of the Islamic Moors. While in the east the

Islamic Turkish forces drove the Christians from Constantinople. Among them were

Greek scholars seeking refuge in the west. They were enthusiastically welcomed in

Florence where there was a ready appetite for their doctrines and teaching. There was a

great enthusiasm for collecting ancient artefacts and manuscripts as the Renaissance

principles were developed from the classical culture of ancient Greece and Rome.

Change was happening on a world scale, but the real hub of cultural and philosophical

development was concentrated in just a few streets and a couple of piazzas in the small

city of Florence. A compact Italian fortified city in the valley of the River Arno.

The Best Of Times

Politically Florence was powerful and had become the centre for trade and banking for

the whole of Europe. Kings, Princes, and Popes deposited their wealth there. At the end

of the 14th Century, Giovanni de Medici was the foremost banker and with the generous

use of his wealth he gained many friends. When his son Cosimo, succeeded him, he was

unopposed as he began to exercise supreme power; ruling as prince in the city. Under

the patronage of the Medici family the Arts, philosophy and political ideas were fostered

and flourished.

Educationally there was great growth in literacy and the city bore the air of a vast

school. Crowds would gather for lectures, academies and universities flourished, and the

introduction of printing enabled new libraries to be established. Many knew Latin and

Greek and were able to find pleasure in discussing the finer points of philosophy.

The availability of books and manuscripts and the interest in languages led to the

development of textual criticism. The scholar Lorenzo Valla demonstrated the falsity of

the Donation of Constantine. This forged document from the 8th Century was supposed

to be a contract of Emperor Constantine I, gifting temporal power in Italy to the Papacy.

Valla also showed that the Vulgate version of the Bible had significant mistranslations of

the Greek and Hebrew.

There was great pride in the fact that the distinguished writers Dante Alighieri and

Petrarch were from Florence and many made great efforts to continue their literary

13 Professor A. G. Dickens, who was director of the Institute of Historical Research of London University, wrote a compelling little study of „Martin Luther and the Reformation’, English Universities Press, London 1970. He said that a main purpose of his writing was to reveal something of the amazing diversity and depth of the changes sweeping Europe from Florence at the moment when the culture was beginning effectively to expand and reshape the destiny of the

whole human race.


13

tradition – producing poems and philosophical books in Latin and Greek.

Cosimo de Medici (1389-1464), contributed to the building of the Monastery of St.

Mark and was able to endow it with a valuable library, which became the first public

library in Italy and drew many scholars to the city to make use of the facility.14

Architecturally there was a building boom of stately churches, magnificent palaces, and

elegant buildings. These were adorned with the sculptures and paintings of great artists

– such as Donatello, Ghiberti, Brunelleschi, Botticelli, Leonardo da Vinci and

Michelangelo. It was then, too, that the development of oil painting marked a new

period in the history of art. Previously the artistic forms had been stylised and fixed but

now there was a move to realism and the natural representation of nature. It was in

Florence that the whole theory of perspective was worked out. The themes were often

based on ancient Greek fables and histories. Because of the interest in man as opposed

to religious themes, there was a beginning of portrait painting where the representation

aimed for a true likeness.

The Worst Of Times

Savonarola records how he took a walk through the streets with the artist Michelangelo.

He commented that drugs and aphrodisiac concoctions were openly on sale. Gambling

and prostitution were patronised by the nobility. The Church was corrupt and

superstition replaced faith. He regarded Florence as another Sodom and Gomorrah and

of Lorenzo de Medici as an enemy of Christ.

Lorenzo de Medici (1449-1492) was the sole ruler of Florence when Savonarola arrived

in the city. He was known as „Lorenzo the Magnificent’ and the most brilliant of the

Medici family. A man of fine intellect and literary skill with excellent artistic taste. He was

patron of many artists, architects and scholars. Two who particularly benefited from his

support were the artist Michelangelo and Marsilio Ficino, the professor of the great

Platonic Academy, (which had been founded by Cosimo de Medici).

He enriched Florence with public works and buildings. His outward manners appeared

kind and refined. But he was a cruel tyrant who put to death eminent citizens for his own

political advantage. He robbed the poor and the charities set up to care for the poor. He

drove both young men and women into prostitution and he swindled the city‟s treasury.

But he was not the sole author of the evil in the city – there was sickness in the society

and in the Church.

There were extremes of poverty and wealth. Wealth was a major cause of the

corruption at the heart of the Church and state. In 1471 Sixtus IV was elected Pope after

buying the votes he needed and used his wealth to fund his immoral lifestyle. In

contrast, the poor were oppressed and loans at rates of 32.5% with compound interest

were standard practice under the Medicis. The grinding poverty led to famine and made

the city a breeding ground for the Black Death, plague.

Corrupt Church. The Church was corrupt in belief and behaviour. Savonarola described

14 Villari – Book 1 Ch 2.


14

the situation with passion and heartbreak -

In these days, prelates and preachers are chained to the earth by the love of

earthly things. The care of souls is no longer their concern. They are content with

the receipt of revenue. The preachers preach to please princes and to be praised

by them. They have done worse. They have not only destroyed the Church of

God. They have built up a new Church after their own pattern. O Lord! Arise, and

come to deliver your Church from the hands of devils, from the hands of tyrants,

from the hands of iniquitous prelates.15

The Church was syncrestic, with fables and the writings of philosophers given equal

place with Scripture. Pagan gods and philosophers were worshipped and on one

occasion, the visit of the Pope was celebrated by erecting statues of heathen deities.

Plato was regarded as a prophet and astrology was used to determine God‟s will.

Corrupt Gospel. The Church had corrupted the gospel by its pluralism. It had denied

that Christ was the only hope of salvation and said that salvation could also be found in

the teachings of Plato and other religions. Those who chose to seek salvation in the

Christian faith were told that it depended on good works, earning merit and buying

indulgences. There was a loss of confidence in the Bible and so it was hardly used in

preaching or private devotions.

Violence. Life was cheap and rivals were simply killed by hired assassins. Children had

little sense of „right and wrong‟ and one favourite game was really a form of gang

warfare. This involved throwing stones and missiles at each other until one side was

unable to continue because of death or injury. State violence was directed at political

opponents and anyone considered a threat. This was the time of the Inquisition when the

most horrific forms of torture were developed and given approval by the Papacy. Some

of these techniques would be used on Savonarola.

Sexual Immorality. The city was known for the excesses of prostitution and the

sacrilege of sex with nuns. But particularly Florence was notorious for homosexual

promiscuity – a reputation similar to that of Corinth in New Testament times. Sodomy

was not restricted to one section of society, but was a regular part of social life. It was

not regarded as „deviant‟ behaviour but a common part of male experience, that had

widespread social ramifications. The sexual renown of Florentine males was so well

known even north of the Alps that in contemporary Germany „to sodomize‟ was popularly

dubbed florenzen and a „sodomite‟, a Florenzer. 16

Remarkably, for the first time in Florence - perhaps the first time in Christian

Europe - groups of men, mainly youths, are found defiantly challenging attempts

to repress sodomy. The armed gangs of lower-class youths ostentatiously showed

15 Quoted by Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church. VI, Page. 688

16 Michael Rocke, Forbidden Friendships: Homosexuality and Male Culture in Renaissance Florence, Oxford University Press. 1996. Page 3


15

off their boyfriends around the city. 17

Savonarola set up patrols to prevent gang rapes taking place in the streets and he said

that „good government is punishing the evil ones and getting sodomites and the wicked

out of your city’. After he was arrested and his morality rejected; a government official

responded – „Thank God, now we can sodomize!‟

Occult Practices. Astrology, divination and occult practises created an atmosphere of

fear and superstition. This not only affected personal life and practice but also became

formalised in the reaching of judgments in the courts, as part of the curriculum in the

Universities, and in the decision-making and administration of the Church. All nature

appeared to teem with hidden forces, and mysterious spirits.

Philosophy Undermined Faith. The philosophy of Florence presented man as the

centre of the universe.18 Visual expression was given to this belief in the commission and

erection of Michelangelo‟s statue of David. This depicts a very tall David immediately

before taking on the challenge of Goliath. He is naked because he represents all of

mankind and not just one man or one period of history. He is beautiful in his own right

and his dignity is increased by the confident way in which he can take on all challenges.

He has no weapons or armour because his resources are all within.

This teaching presented both a distorted estimation of man and a debasing of the person

and position of God. The Scriptures were viewed as interesting ancient documents to be

held alongside those of ancient Greece and Rome. Jesus was seen as a prophet and

teacher with Plato and Aristotle as his equals. The text of the Scriptures was viewed as

unreliable and its teaching on public and private morality was disregarded. Rather than

seeking to counter these ideas, the Church accepted and promoted them as the fount of

wisdom.

Fear of Islam. In the latter half of the 15th Century the Muslim community had been

driven out of Spain. Its members included many Arab scholars who had preserved the

science and philosophy of ancient Greece. Their teaching had been readily received in

Florence while their political influence was viewed with great suspicion. The Christian

West continued to hold ambitions of a great crusade, which would free the holy places of

Palestine from Muslim domination. But these had met with little success and instead of

reclaiming territory; the Turks had driven Christianity from its ancient capital of

Constantinople. Many of the Greek scholars from this city were welcomed as refugees in

Florence.

The fear involved both anxiety about the political intentions of Islam and an uncertainty

about the unique claims of Christianity in the face of the rapid spread of a rival faith.

Savonarola – His Birth and Background

17 ibid - Page 195

18 Thomas M. Lindsay, A History of the Reformation. Volume: 1, T & T Clark. Edinburgh. 1907. Page 158


16

Girolamo Savonarola was born on September 21st 1452. His grandfather Michele, was

physician to the court of the Duke of Ferrara and Girolamo, who was the third of seven

children, also planned to study medicine. Up to the start of his medical training, his basic

education centred on the works of St. Thomas Aquinas, the Arabic commentaries on

Aristotle, and the Bible. Michele was very fond of Girolamo and personally undertook his

education. By the age of ten he was able to write Latin fluently.19 But his grandfather

believed that the one subject that really mattered was the study of the Sacred

Scriptures. It is possible that by the age of twenty Girolamo had memorised most of the

Bible in Latin.20

Savonarola – His Lifestory 1452-1498

In his early twenties, his own spiritual renewal (possibly through a printed sermon of

Augustine) produced a growing sense of concern at the state of the Church. This drove

him to give up medicine and enter the Dominican Monastery in Bologna in 1475. His

devotion to God became the central focus of his life and he nearly always ended his

prayers with the words: ‘Lord, make known to me the path my soul should tread.’ 21 He

felt the answer to this question involved a commitment to the monastic life and his early

admiration for the teaching of St Thomas Aquinas drew him particularly to the Dominican

order.

Professor Jill Raitt, of the University of Chicago, specialised in the Middle Ages and

Reformation, and identifies the academic engagement of the Dominicans -

As the order became more involved in the universities, it inevitably became

involved in a more intellectual apostolate. One of the needs of the time was for a

serious attempt to cope theologically with the new, Aristotelian learning which

posed a serious threat to orthodoxy. Thomas Aquinas in particular helped to

disentangle the genuine teaching of Aristotle and to show how it could be made

to serve orthodox theology. Later on there was a similar problem with the new

humanism of the Italian Renaissance, and once again Dominicans were

prominently involved. 22

Called to Florence 1481. After six years he was sent to St. Mark‟s Monastery in

Florence. Here he taught theology; philosophical and moral science; and above all, the

study of the Scriptures with the help of Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic and Turkish languages.

These languages were also taught with the hope that one day the Lord would send him

and his brethren to preach the gospel to the Turks.23

It was in Florence that his preaching ministry began, when he was invited to give the

Lenten sermons in St Lorenzo. He based all his sermons on Bible texts at a time when

few Florentines read the Bible at all, since finding its Latin incorrect, they were afraid of

19 Paassen – page 3.

20 Paassen – page 13

21 Villari – Book 1 Ch. 1

22 Jill Raitt, contributor, Bernard McGinn and John Meyendorff, editors, Christian Spirituality: High Middle Ages and Reformation: Crossroad Publishing. New York. 1988

23 Villari – Book 1 Ch 10. Note that Savonarola often disclosed information about the studies at the monastery, in references made in his sermons.


17

being corrupted by its teaching. Though his youthful hearers listened with great respect,

his style was so different to the eloquence of the other preachers in the city, that they

rejected him.

In contrast, the Augustinian monk, Fra Mariano da Genazzano, was preaching to crowds

in the city and the Medici held him in high esteem. His sermons were regarded as the

finest oratory and based in the philosophy of the Platonic Academy. He rarely referred to

Scripture but delighted in quoting Plato and Aristotle. To prevent any possibility of

tedium he told many stories and moved his hearers to frequent laughter with his many

jokes.

In 1484 Savonarola was sent by his community to the area of San Gimignano and then

on to Genoa. In these places he was again called on to preach and had time to develop

his homiletic skills. The same year (1484) Pope Sixtus IV died and many hoped that the

next Pope would bring reformation and renewal to the Church. But the result of the

election destroyed their hopes. It was obvious that the new Pope Innocent VIII had

gained power by using his wealth to bribe and cajole. As he began his Papal rule his

immorality and godlessness were of a worse degree than that of Sixtus IV. He openly

announced that his sons were to be regarded as princes. In 1487 he married his eldest

son to the daughter of Lorenzo de Medici, who in return had his thirteen-year-old son

Giovanni, made a cardinal. (He was later to be Pope Leo X). So Rome deepened its

reputation as a seat of scandal and sin.

Savonarola‟s reputation as a great preacher reached the city and in 1489 Lorenzo

requested the Community to have him returned to Florence. On his return he began by

expounding the book of Revelation and gradually the form of presentation changed into

passionate sermons. Because of growing numbers he was asked to move into the church

and preach from the pulpit, so that he could be heard more clearly. On Sunday 1st

August 1489, the church of St. Mark was filled with people who were in awe of his

intellectual brilliance and passion, but also said that his voice had supernatural power

and penetration. He was hailed a success and the whole city talked of him so that even

the members of the Platonic Academy wanted to discuss his message.24

He preaches in the Cathedral and resists the Medici 1491. Soon the church could

no longer hold the crowds and in Lent of 1491, Savonarola transferred to preach in

Santa Maria del Fiore, the Cathedral (Duomo) where the number of listeners increased.

His preaching became more passionate and included prophetic announcements about the

future of the city and strong criticism of the Medici government and the sin of the city.

This obviously roused the hostility of Lorenzo de Medici, and his friends. As Savonarola

became aware of the rising tension he thought for a time that he should confine his

preaching to personal faith, and not mention political issues or the need for Church

reform. But he found himself compelled to preach what was in his heart and his despair

over the corruption in the Church and in the city.

I sought no longer to speak in your name, O Lord; but you have overpowered

me, and conquered me. Your word has become like a fire within me, consuming

the very marrow of my bones. Therefore, am I derided and despised by the

24 His sermons were always published in Italian; but when he wrote them out for printing, he

found it easier to outline them in Latin. All the marginal notes in his Bibles are in Latin, and he always preferred that language when writing.


18

people. But I have faith in the Lord; He gives me daily greater courage and

perseverance, and I preach the regeneration of the Church, taking the Scriptures

as my sole guide. Be of good cheer and return quickly, that I may tell you the

marvellous deeds of the Lord.’25

In these days there is no grace, no gift of the Holy Spirit that may not be bought

and sold. On the other hand, the poor are oppressed by grievous burdens, and

when they are called to pay sums beyond their means, the rich cry unto them,

‘Give me the rest’.26

Everyone knew that he was referring to Lorenzo and they were aware that their ruler

had corrupted the magistrates and raided both public and private funds. Because of

Savonarola‟s courage in voicing what everyone felt, he became their hero and in July

1491 he was elected Prior of St. Mark‟s. This position gave him greater responsibility and

prominence. It also gave him greater freedom, which he exercised in a manner that

heightened the tension with Lorenzo.

Lorenzo sent five of the leading citizens of Florence to insist that the Prior change his

behaviour and the content of his preaching, even hinting that he might be sent into

exile. Savonarola's response was a prophecy that great changes would occur and that

the Pope, the King of Naples, and Lorenzo were all close to death.27

This was now becoming a power struggle with the Prior gaining increasing influence. So

Lorenzo instructed Fra Mariano da Genazzano to preach a sermon denouncing the

prophecies and the person of Savonarola. Mariano took up this challenge with

enthusiasm. He was bitterly annoyed that the man from St Mark‟s had usurped his

supreme position as the leading preacher of Florence.

A great crowd was present along with Lorenzo and the leading citizens who were

expecting to witness a crushing diatribe against the Prior of St Mark's. Unfortunately,

Mariano became overexcited and made many accusations against Savonarola, which his

hearers instinctively knew were untrue. He made matters worse by making his claims

using vile and disgusting language so that his hearers were repelled. This meant that in

one sermon, his reputation of many years was destroyed.

Lorenzo felt very humiliated and Mariano was angry and vowed that he would have

vengeance on Savonarola and did finally succeed by becoming one of the principal

agents of his arrest and death.

Made Vicar General of Dominicans 1492. Within the year the prophecy concerning

Lorenzo‟s death and the death of the Pope was fulfilled. On 11 August 1492 a new Pope

was elected. A Spaniard, Rodrigo Borgia, who took the name Alexander VI. He too

gained power by bribery and corruption. While he was a cardinal he had fathered

several children by different mistresses. As Pope he continued in the same lifestyle.

At one point, when Alexander VI was absent from Rome (1501), he remarkably


26 ibid.

27 Villari – Book 1 Ch 8


19

left his daughter Lucretia in charge of the Holy See. 28

This same year Savonarola was appointed the Vicar General of the order of Dominicans

and for the next three years his influence grew steadily; until by mid 1495 he virtually

ruled the city from his pulpit.29

He predicts the coming of the French, during Lent 1494. Savonarola continued to

grieve over the godless state of the Church and its clergy. (It is worth quoting him to

sense the passion as well as the rhetoric.) He said,

They tickle men’s ears with talk of Aristotle and Plato, Virgil and Petrarch, and

take no concern in the salvation of souls. Why, instead of expounding so many

books, do they not expound the one Book in which is the law and spirit of life!

The Gospel, O Christians, you should ever have with you; not merely the letter,

but the spirit of the Gospel. They preach chastity, and maintain concubines; they

prescribe fasting, and feast splendidly themselves.

See, how in these days prelates and preachers are chained to the earth by love of

earthly things; the care of souls is no longer their concern; they are content with

the receipt of revenue; the preachers preach for the pleasure of princes, to be

praised and magnified by them . . . . And they have done even worse than this,

inasmuch as they have not only destroyed the Church of God, but built up

another after their own fashion. This is the new Church, no longer built of living

rock, namely, of Christians steadfast in the living faith and in the mould of love;

but built of sticks, namely, of Christians dry as tinder for the fires of hell. And

there is no prelate, nor great lord that has not intimate dealings with some

astrologer, who fixes the hour and the moment in which he is to ride out or

undertake some piece of business. For these great lords undertake no venture

without the guidance of their astrologer.

Our Church has many fine outer ceremonies for the solemnization of ecclesiastical

rites, grand vestments and numerous draperies, with gold and silver candlesticks,

and so many chalices that it is a majestic sight to behold. Men feed upon these

vanities and rejoice in these pomps, and say that the Church of Christ was never

so flourishing, nor divine worship so well conducted as at present . . . . also, that

the first prelates were inferior to these of our own times . . . . But do you know

what I would tell you? In the primitive Church the chalices were of wood, the

prelates of gold; in these days the Church has chalices of gold and prelates of

wood. 30

These have introduced devilish games among us; they have no belief in God, and

jeer at the mysteries of our faith! What are you doing, O Lord? Why do you

slumber? Arise, and come to deliver your Church from the hands of the devils,

from the hands of tyrants, the hands of iniquitous prelates. Have you forsaken

your Church? Do you not love her? Is she not dear to you? O Lord God, You have

28 F. Donald Logan, A History of the Church in the Middle Ages, Routledge Press. London. 2002. Page 352.

29 The New Catholic Encyclopaedia, Catholic University of America, Washington DC, 1967

30 Quoted by Philip Schaff in History of the Christian Church. VI, p. 688


20

dealt with us as a wrathful father, You have cast us out from your presence!

Hasten then the chastisement and the scourge, that it may be quickly granted to

us to return to you.

Be not scandalized, O my brethren, by these words; rather, when you see that

the righteous desire chastisement, know that it is because they seek to banish

evil, so that the kingdom of our Blessed Lord, Jesus Christ, may flourish in the

world. The only hope that now remains to us is that the sword of God may soon

smite the earth.’31

His answer to the sins of the city, state and church leadership, was a removal of the

corrupt leaders and a chastisement from God, which would bring pain and suffering;

causing all to be driven to repentance. Prophetically, in Lent 1494, he pronounced that

the servant God would use, like a latter day Cyrus, would be the French king Charles

VIII, and his multinational army which was moving through Europe and challenging the

lands controlled by the Pope and deposing the local princes in their city states.

His preaching shared the same apocalyptic themes of coming crisis, judgment and the

need to repent, as seen in previous generations. But as Bernard McGinn32 points out –

Perhaps the most distinctive characteristic of the pessimistic role of late medieval

apocalyptic thought was its obsession with the state of the Church. Corruption in

head and members of Christ's Mystical Body was the most evident sign that evil

was mounting to a point of culmination.33

Arrival of Charles VIII and rout of the Medici 1494. Piero de Medici had succeeded

Lorenzo and had ruled for two years when the threat from the French reached a crisis

point. The French had sent envoys and discovered that though the princes of the city

states were opposed to Charles VIII, the people viewed his coming very favourably. In

Florence, Savonarola, gave an invitation from the pulpit, to the new Cyrus to come and

take over the city. In November 1494, the people were stunned to find that Piero de

Medici had fled and placed the city at the mercy of Charles VIII.

This meant that the people could now take control of their own city, but they did not

know whom to trust and had no leader. Fortunately they instinctively gathered at the

Duomo where Savonarola was due to preach. The crowd was so closely packed that

there was no room to move. All looked to the only man with any influence and integrity.

Carefully Savonarola bent forward in the pulpit and avoided all reference to politics and

proclaimed the law of peace, charity and union. He also went on to say that his

prophecies were being fulfilled and that this was the Lord‟s doing. Their response needed

31Sermon xxiii. pp. 578-579, Prediche sul Salmo Quam bonus: Prato, Guasti, 1846. p. 237. These sermons were reported verbatim. After their delivery in the Duomo, Savonarola wrote them

out in Latin in a somewhat abbreviated form, as may be ascertained from the holograph codex at St. Mark‟s. They were afterwards translated and published in an amended form by Girolamo Giannotti during the sixteenth century. Quoted by Villari – Book 1 Ch 10.

32 Emeritus Professor of Theology, Chicago University and world authority of medieval mysticism.

33 Bernard McGinn, Apocalyptic Spirituality: Treatises and Letters of Lactantius, Adso of Montier-En-Der, Joachim of Fiore, the Franciscan Spirituals, Savonarola, Paulist Press. New

York.1979. Page 184.


21

to be repentance and unity.

My people, what desire has ever been mine but to see you saved, to see you

united?’ ‘Repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand!’ But I have said this so

many times, I have cried to you so many times; I have wept for you, O Florence,

so many times, that it should be enough. To You I turn, O Lord, to You, who did

die for love of us and for our sins: forgive, O Lord, forgive the Florentine people,

that we might be Your people.34

Knowing that the King was coming, the city sent out envoys to try to settle terms with

him. But they were not well received. Then Savonarola made a visit out to the French

camp and requested to see him. Having been welcomed into the King‟s presence he

spoke directly.

O most Christian king, you are an instrument in the hand of the Lord, who sends

you to relieve the woes of Italy, as for many years I have foretold; and He sends

you to reform the Church, which now lies prostrate in the dust. But if you are not

just and merciful; if you should fail to respect the city of Florence, its women, its

citizens, and its liberty; if you should forget the task the Lord has sent you to

perform, then He will choose another to fulfil it; His hand shall smite you, and

chastise you with terrible scourges. These things I say to you in the name of the

Lord.35

The King held the Prior in high esteem, as the one who had identified him as the servant

of God and predicted his victories. It was for this reason that Charles VIII treated the

city of Florence with more deference when he did arrive.

Savonarola returned with the news that the King was coming and that he was to be

received with honour and that in return he would treat the people honourably. On

hearing this, the people began great preparations at the Medici palace36 for the reception

of the King.

On 17 November, the king made his state entry through the streets which were covered

with awnings and draped with hangings and tapestries. The description of the King‟s

triumphal entry hinted at the motif which Savonarola would use in his Triumph of the

Cross. All eyes were on the King, surrounded by the powerful multi-national army. He

wore black velvet with a mantle of gold brocade and rode on a beautiful horse; entering

the city with his lance held out as a sign of victory. At his side were two Cardinals,

followed by the royal body-guard of 100 French bowmen, and then 200 French knights

marching on foot. Behind them were the Swiss infantry, the French cavalry and the

Scottish archers. It was estimated that this mercenary army numbered about 12,000.

The procession crossed the Ponte Vecchio (Old Bridge) and made its way to the

Cathedral via the Piazza. The King entered the Duomo and was greeted by leaders of

the city. After some prayers they escorted him to the Medici Palace. That night and the

following day were filled with feasting and music – even before any terms for a treaty



36 Now known as the Riccardi Palace in Via Cavour


22

had been negotiated.

In the rush of events Savonarola was recognised by all as a true prophet because of all

that had occurred. He had the attention of the King and the confidence of the city so it

was natural that he should be the one looked to for counsel and direction regarding the

future.

The Republic established 1495, The terms agreed with the King gave freedom to the

citizens of Florence in return for their loyalty to the French regime and payment of taxes.

But the people did not know how to handle this freedom, so they looked to Savonarola

for guidance. He was reluctant to get involved in politics but as he continued to preach

the gospel, he also began to proclaim that the Lord would renew all things and then use

Florence as the instrument of renewal in all Italy.

O people of Florence, you shall begin the reformation of all Italy, and spread your

wings over the earth to bear reform to all nations. Remember that the Lord has

given plain signs that it is His purpose to renew all things, and that you are the

people chosen to begin this great enterprise, provided that you follow the

commands of Him who calls and invites you to return to the spiritual life.37

On 12th December 1494 he decided to address the political issues. He explained that the

best government was, to be ruled by a single good monarch. But it was also the worst

form of government if the single ruler were a bad monarch. The other options were

aristocracy or democracy and he suggested that democracy would suit the nature of the

Florentines, if they acknowledged Christ as the supreme ruler.38 The Scriptures were to

be its book of laws, and love for God and neighbour would make them strong. He

proposed a Greater Council of 3,200 citizens, which would be divided into three sections

with each ruling for six months. This was found to be too complex and so the number

was reduced to eighty men over the age of forty.

Savonarola did not enter into politics of his own choice, but only when impelled by the

irresistible force of events. He was not a member of the Council but he ruled and

exercised influence through his preaching in the Duomo. Within one year the freedom of

Florence was established and a Republic formed, taxation was reformed, justice

re-organized, and the Greater Council was instituted. All this had been accomplished,

without a sword being drawn or any blood shed.

This Friar made no harangues in the streets, had no seat in the Councils of the

State, yet he was the soul of the whole people, and the chief author of every law

of the new government. In all the laws subsequent to the revolution of 1494, the

influence of the democratic monk is clearly to be traced in every word and

detail.39


38 In the course of his last sermon on Haggai he announced that it was the Lord‟s will to give a new head to the city of Florence; and after keeping his audience long in suspense, finally declared

„This new head is Jesus Christ; He seeks to become your King!’ Villari – Book 2 Ch 5



23

There was a new spirit in the city. High fashion was exchanged for modest dress.

Gambling, drugs and sexual excesses were curtailed and the main occupation of leisure

time was reading the Scriptures or the printed sermons of the Prior. Prayer became a

central feature of life and people flocked to the churches. The poor were cared for and

trade was conducted with honesty. People from outside of the city travelled in to hear

the Prior preach in the Duomo. At times even this vast Cathedral could not hold all who

wanted to listen. But the most significant thing was that they did not just hear the Word

– they responded and hundreds were converted.

He is summoned to Rome and resists the Medici 1495 – 1496. Piero de Medici had

fled to Rome where he persuaded Pope Alexander to help him to re-establish his rule.

The Pope readily agreed to support him because he wanted to punish the city for its

loyalty to France. But his real aim was the total destruction of the Republic and the

temporary reinstatement of the Medici, as a means to making his own son the ruler.

In Florence the Franciscan Community was filled with jealousy and hated the popularity

of the Prior. They accused him of meddling in politics, which they said was not proper for

a man of God. Savonarola silenced them by citing the example of Moses and the

prophets of the Old Testament. Their hatred continued and became one of the principal

causes of Savonarola's eventual death.

He had other enemies who were offended by his preaching and power. The most bitter

and vocal were the upper class youth who gained the name of the Arrabiati (the Furies).

They were joined by the old friends of the Medici, who were called the Compagnacci.

Knowing that there was growing ill feeling against him in Rome, Savonarola had kept the

tone of his criticism quieter. But those who were against him began to circulate letters

early in 1495, which accused the Prior of hatred of the Medici and the Pope. Pope

Alexander‟s anger was stirred and further inflamed by accusations brought to him by

Savonarola‟s worst enemy, Mariano da Genazzano, who always spoke of the Prior as „The

Devil’s Instrument.‟

The Pope‟s response was to send a Brief (official letter) to Savonarola on 25th July 1495.

It was couched in mild terms, but its invitation to visit Rome was seen by many as a trap

to have the Prior killed once he left the safety of Florence. He wrote –

To our well-beloved son, greeting and the apostolic benediction. We have heard

that of all the workers in the Lord’s vineyard, you are the most zealous; at which

we deeply rejoice, and give thanks to the Almighty God. We have likewise heard

that you assert that your predictions of the future proceed not from you but from

God; wherefore we desire, as behoves our pastoral office, to have conversation

with you concerning these things; so that being better informed by you, of God’s

will, we may be better able to fulfil it. Wherefore, by your vow of holy obedience,

we instruct you to attend on us here without delay, and we shall welcome you

with loving-kindness.40

All knew the evil nature of the Pope and were aware of the plots of the Arrabiati, who

had already tried to kill Savonarola, so no one was deceived by the letter. If the Pope did

not kill him on his way then he would probably hold the Prior as a prisoner. So



24

Savonarola‟s friends warned him that there was danger for him if he went and also

danger for the city if he were absent.

It was a dilemma requiring Savonarola to either disobey the Pope‟s mandate, or risk his

life at the hands of the Pope or the Arrabiati. Savonarola quickly replied on 31 July and I

quote part of his response.

Most Blessed Father! The Holy Father chooses to summon to him, his humble

servant. But I am barely recovered from a very serious malady, which has forced

me to suspend both preaching and study, and still threatens my life. There are

many adversaries, both within and outside the city, who, having sought to

enslave it, and having been confounded instead, now seek my blood, and have

frequently attempted to take my life by steel and poison.41 Wherefore I could not

depart without manifest risk, nor can I even walk through the city without an

armed escort. And should your Holiness desire greater certainty on the matters

publicly foretold by me concerning the chastisement of Italy and the renovation of

the Church, you will find them set forth in a book of mine that is now being made

public.42 Accordingly, I beseech your Holiness to graciously accept my very true

and plain excuses, and to believe that it is my ardent desire to come to Rome, as

soon as possible.43

The Pope replied informally saying that his excuse was accepted. But on 8th September,

he sent an official Brief addressed to the Franciscan Community in Florence, which stated

that Savonarola was a „disseminator of false doctrines’. The Pope went on to say that he

had shown great patience towards him, in the hope that he would repent. Now he

ordered that the Prior should „refrain from every description of preaching, whether public

or private’. All this was under pain of excommunication.44

Savonarola was now in a difficult position because he did not want to rebel against the

Pope. But neither did he want the Republic to be crushed by the growing conspiracies

and the removal of his own leadership. He put his feelings into a letter sent to a brother

Dominican in Rome on 15th September.

It is known to the entire world that the charges made against me are false, and

will bring great infamy on those prelates and the whole of Rome. I well know that

my accusers have no just cause for attack, for truly they are stoning me for a

41 On 24th May 1495, an attempt was made on his life in the Cocomero street after he had been

preaching.

42 He here alludes to his „Compendium Revelationum.‟


44 Excommunication is the most severe punishment the Roman Catholic Church can exercise. It is the privation of all rights resulting from the social status of the Christian as such. The excommunicated person, it is true, does not cease to be a Christian, since his baptism can never

be effaced; he can, however, be considered as an exile from Christian society and as non-existent, for a time at least, in the sight of ecclesiastical authority. But such exile can have an end (and the Church desires it), as soon as the offender has given suitable satisfaction. Meanwhile, his status before the Church is that of a stranger. He may not participate in public worship nor receive the Body of Christ or any of the sacraments. Moreover, if he be a cleric, he is forbidden to administer a sacred rite or to exercise an act of spiritual authority. New Advent Catholic Encyclopaedia.

This is the modern definition of excommunication, but for many in the 15th Century it was thought to include the loss of eternal salvation.


25

good deed; but I dread them not, neither am I afraid of their power, for the grace

of God and a pure conscience are enough for me. I know the root of all these

plots, and know them to be the work of evil-minded citizens who would wish to

re-establish tyranny in Florence, and are in conspiracy with certain Italian

potentates. All these men seek my death; so I can no longer go abroad without a

guard of armed men. Nevertheless, if there is no other way of saving my

conscience, I am resolved to make submission, so as to avoid even a venial sin.

For the present I suspend judgment and take no hasty decision, following the

example of the Fathers.45

He also wrote to the Pope saying, ‘And now again I repeat that which I have always said;

that I submit myself and all my writings to the correction of the Holy Roman Church.’

This elicited another Papal Brief on 16th of October that addressed him as if he had

come to repentance.

In other letters we have manifested our grief to you, regarding these

disturbances in Florence, of which your sermons have been the chief cause;

forasmuch as instead of preaching against vice and in favour of union, you did

predict the future, the very thing that might give birth to discord even among a

peaceful people, but much more among the Florentines, in whom there be so

many seeds of discontent and party spirit. These were the reasons for which we

summoned you to our presence; but now that, by your letters and the testimony

of many cardinals, we find you prepared to yield obedience to the Roman Church,

we do greatly rejoice, feeling assured that you have erred rather from too much

simplicity than from badness of heart. Wherefore we again reply to your letters,

and in virtue of your vow of holy obedience command you to abstain from all

sermons not only in public, but in private, so that no man may say that after

preaching in the pulpit you have been reduced to conventicles46. And you will

continue in this course until such time as you are able to seek our presence with

greater safety and with honour—when we will receive you in a joyful and fatherly

spirit. 47

Because this Brief was a long time in delivery, Savonarola was able to preach three

times in October, before the instruction to be silent arrived.

The Pope could find no fault with the Prior‟s teaching and a cardinal‟s hat was offered to

Savonarola on condition that he would change the tone of his sermons. This offer was

most unexpected and came at a time of heightened tension, The Prior‟s response was

great anger because he now had proof that Rome traded in holy things and regarded

vocations in the Church as items to be sold. „Come to my next sermon, and you shall

45 This letter was published by Mons. Perrens, to whom it had been given by Abate Bernardi, who

had discovered it in a codex of the Marcian Library of Venice (class ix. 4t), with the date 15th of September, 1496. But this date was changed by Mons. Perrens to that of 15th of September, 1495, and Gherardi has proved that he was right in so doing: It is true that in the old Codex 2053 of the Riccardi Library (sheet cxvi°) the letter is dated 1496; but there is an added note to the effect that the letter should be placed directly after the Brief of the 8th of September, 1495, and that its original date of 1495 had been afterwards erroneously altered to 1496.

46 Illegal religious meetings



26

hear my reply to Rome‟ was his reply to the messenger.

On 17th February, 1496, Savonarola reappeared in the pulpit to begin a Lenten series of

sermons. He was overflowing with grief and indignation. He knew that the battle with the

Pope was becoming more intense and that his life was now in serious danger. After

months of silence, the people wanted to hear his voice and to hear what he would say

about Rome. Standing room in the Duomo was insufficient and so an amphitheatre of

seventeen rows of seats was erected against the wall of the nave.

Savonarola began by explaining that he had written to Rome, and that he had affirmed

his faith in Catholic Doctrine and that he was willing to retract anything that he may

have preached or written that was found to be heretical. He went on to say that he

would always be prepared to yield obedience to the Roman Church and that to refuse to

obey would be to put one‟s salvation in jeopardy.

Then having declared the orthodoxy of his belief and his willingness to obey he went on

to qualify the terms of his obedience. He said that we are not bound to obey our

superiors or even the Pope if their command is contrary to the Gospel. To illustrate this

he accused the people of obeying unchristian instructions.

He tells you to fast on a certain Saturday, at a certain hour, and you fast, and

believe you are saved. I tell you that the Lord wills not that you fast on such a

day or at such an hour, but wills that you avoid sin throughout all the days of

your life. Instead, you are good for one hour of the day, in order to be bad all

your life. Observe the ways of these men during the last three days of Holy Week.

See how they go about seeking indulgences and pardons! Come here, go there,

kiss St. Peter, St. Paul, this Saint and that! Come, come, ring bells, dress altars,

deck the churches, come all of you, for three days before Easter, and then no

more. God mocks your doings and does not heed your ceremonies, . . . for,

Easter passed, you will be worse than before. All is vanity, all is hypocrisy in our

times; true religion is dead.48

Then with great courage he turned to a forensic analysis and condemnation of Rome and

Papal leadership. He acknowledged the authority of the Pope, quoting the New

Testament: ‘You are Peter, and on this rock will I build my church; and that which you

bind on earth shall be bound in heaven.’ But then repeated that we are not bound to

obey everything and at times even the Pope needs to be resisted as a duty - as St. Paul

resisted St. Peter and corrected him. Then people would have to say – ‘You do err, you

are not the Roman Church, you are a man and a sinner.’

Then he continued

You, Rome, are stricken with a mortal malady. You have lost your health, and

have forsaken the Lord; you are sick with sins and tribulations . . . . If you would

be healed, forsake feasting; forsake your pride, your ambition, your lusts, and

your greed: these are the food that have caused your sickness, these that bring

you to death.

Thus says the Lord: Inasmuch as Italy is all full of iniquities, harlots, and

miserable people who exploit the sexual weakness of others, I will overwhelm her

with the scum of the earth; will abase her princes, and trample the pride of



27

Rome. These invaders shall capture her sanctuaries, and defile her churches; and

inasmuch as these have been made dens of vice, I will make them stables for

horses and swine, which will be less displeasing to God than seeing them made

haunts of prostitutes.

That is, fly from Rome, for Babylon signifies confusion, and Rome has confused all

the Scriptures, confused all vices together, confused everything. Fly, then, from

Rome, and come to repentance.49

He spoke so boldly because he was convinced that Pope Alexander‟s election was null,

and he hoped that a Council would soon be formed to call the Church leadership to

account and put an end to its sin.

The sermon ended with a prophecy concerning his own end. He described the situation

as a war with Rome and that it would end in victory. But for him personally it would end

in death -

I tell you it will end in death and being cut to pieces. Rest assured, however, that

all this will serve to spread abroad this doctrine, which proceeds not from me, but

from God. I am but a tool in His hands; wherefore I am resolved to fight to the

death. I would be glorified only in You, my God! Neither mitres nor Cardinals’

hats would I have, but only the gift You have conferred on your saints—death, a

crimson hat, a hat reddened with blood; that is my desire.50

The impact of this sermon was felt in most of Europe and even in the Islamic world

where the Sultan had his sermons translated into Turkish, so that he could read them.51

During the summer the city suffered from sickness and famine, being isolated from the

commerce and support of other Italian states because of the ongoing dispute between

Rome and the Prior and Republic. The Arrabiati relished the general distress and said

that it proved that the Prior was a deceiver and the city should surrender to Rome. The

Council was uncertain what course to adopt, and appealed to Savonarola to preach and

guide them again.

Savonarola responded to the request, and re-entered the pulpit on the 28th of October.

But now the atmosphere was quite different. People were distressed and feared for the

future. They expected famine and war which would be followed by exile and death. All

believed the republic was nearing its end and that the Arrabiati would take power. The

words of the Prior gave them courage and hope.

One week later on All Souls‟ Day, he preached on ‘The art of dying a good death.’52 He

said that the true Christian ought to keep the idea of death always before his eyes.

Death is the most solemn moment of our life: it is then that the evil one makes

his last attack upon us. It is as though he were always playing chess with man,

and waiting the approach of death to give him checkmate. He who wins at that



51 ibid.



28

moment wins the battle of life. O my brethren, for what do we live in this world,

except to learn to die a good death!

Then he announced that he had been declared heretical in his teaching but that he would

now refute his critics by publishing his teaching in his book that was nearing completion

and which was titled - The Triumph of the Cross.

Tension increases and the Bonfire of the Vanities 1497. Savonarola spent the

beginning of 1497 in silent isolation. His focus was on the writing and editing of the

„Triumph of the Cross‟, but also he gave time to writing other pamphlets. Through the

wide distribution of his writings he hoped to gather more supporters in the violent

struggle with Rome, which he believed was coming to a climax.

Savonarola‟s place as preacher was taken by Frà Domenico, who was having to contend

with the ever more confident Arrabiati. As the time of Carnival approached they wanted

to revive the former orgies and festivities, especially the game of stones where youths

and children assaulted each other in the piazzas. These had all been banned by

Savonarola and now Domenico preached against them and had a new law passed in the

Council to prohibit some of the festivities.

The previous year Savonarola had involved the children in processions and prayers. But

this year they went about in small groups visiting the homes of the wealthy and asked

them to surrender any lewd literature, gambling equipment, or obscene artworks. Also

the carnival masks and costumes worn at the orgies. When anything was handed over

they offered a special prayer of blessing written by the Prior.

The last day of the Carnival was 7th February and in the morning, adults and children

attended Mass. They then returned to their homes for a meal before reassembling for a

great procession in the city. The destination was the Piazza, where a huge pyramid had

been formed from the collected „vanities‟. Its size alone was impressive and may well

have been 18 metres high. Packed in among the items were combustible materials. At a

given signal, four guardians of the pile set fire to the pyramid, which immediately burst

into flames. Trumpeters played fanfares and bells were rung while the people shouted

for joy at the climax of the carnival.

In spring 1497, Savonarola decided to preach again from the pulpit. There was

considerable excitement at the announcement that this would happen. Both friends and

foes were equally thrilled by the prospect. The Arrabiati threatened that he would not be

allowed to preach. His supporters said that he would be heard. The agitation reached

such a pitch that bets were placed on whether the sermon would be preached. When the

Council heard this they issued a decree, annulling the wagers and forbidding any attempt

to prevent the sermon from being given. 53

But those who opposed the Prior were not deterred from seeking to kill him. Some of

Savonarola‟s friends visited him in his monastic cell and begged him not to preach,

because his life was at risk. But he replied: „No fear of man shall induce me to deprive

the people of their sermon on the day appointed by the Lord to His disciples for going to

spread His doctrine through the world.’



29

On the day the Prior entered the pulpit. He began by speaking of faith as all-powerful.

And went on -

The times predicted are now at hand; the hour of danger has come; and now it

shall be manifest who is truly with the Lord. The wicked thought to prevent this

sermon today; but they should know that I have never shirked my duty through

fear of man. No mortal upon earth, be he great or small, can boast of having

hindered me from fulfilling my office. I am even ready to lay down my life for it.

O Lord! deliver me from these foes who brand me as a seducer; deliver my soul,

since for my body I fear not.54

Immediately a great crash sounded through the Cathedral, caused by one of his

opponents who had taken the alms box and thrown it down onto the stone flooring. This

was the signal for the disturbance to begin. The doors opened and many people fled out

into the street. Those people still in the building shouted and banged on benches and

doors. Some of the more courageous gathered round the pulpit to protect the Prior.

Others went to fetch arms from nearby houses and returned with lances and swords.

Throughout Savonarola endeavoured to be heard and seeing that it was a futile task, he

knelt in prayer until his friends could secure safe passage for him. Then surrounded by

them, displaying their arms, they made their way to St Mark‟s Monastery. On arrival in

the monastery garden, and among his supporters he concluded his sermon –

The longer the Lord stays His hand, the more heavily and severely will He smite

each one according to his works. The wicked refuse to believe, refuse to listen;

but they will fall into the pit they have dug for others. They are undermining the

foundations of a wall that will crush them as it breaks. Now I will sing praises

unto the Lord and joyfully depart from this life.55

The events of the day were hot news and the full details were soon known throughout

Italy.

Excommunication 1497. The people had originally gathered for a word from the Prior

to sustain them in their suffering from the plague. All they had heard was, „Do not fear,

cast not away your trust in God; it is His proving time; arouse yourselves, and help your

sick brethren.’ But the people died, and poverty followed without any sign of a miracle so

that many began to waver in their faith, and lose confidence in Savonarola.

When the Pope heard of the riot he realised that the support for Savonarola was

weakened and that the Arrabiati were growing in strength. So he was more open to their

request that it was now the right time to excommunicate the Prior.

Realising what was being planned, Savonarola wrote to the Pope, on 22nd of May. He

asked why the Pope was angry with his servant and pointed out that the Pope was ready

to listen to the false accusations made against him but always refused to listen to the

Prior himself. He ended by asserting that his sermons and writings proved his orthodoxy,




30

and this would be seen by means of his Triumph of the Cross. His final words were -

For if all human aid fail me, I will put my trust in God, and show the world the

iniquity of those, who, may perhaps be driven to repent the work they have in

hand.56

His letter was useless because eight days earlier, 13th May, the Brief of

excommunication had been despatched.

Therefore we now command you, on all festivals, and in the presence of the

people, to declare the said Frà Girolamo excommunicate, and to be held as such

by all men, for his failure to obey our apostolic admonitions and commands. And,

under pain of the same penalty, all are forbidden to assist him, hold conversation

with him, or approve him either by word or deed, inasmuch as he is an

excommunicated person, and suspected of heresy.—Given in Rome this 13th day

of May, 1497.57

Savonarola responded with dignity and formed his defence. The day after the

proclamation he wrote an „Epistle against surreptitious excommunication,

addressed to all Christians beloved of God.‟ In it he repeated the orthodoxy of his

teaching and concluded:

The lukewarm need have no fear, for this excommunication is invalid both in the

sight of God and man, inasmuch as it is based on the false reasons and

accusations devised by our enemies. I have always submitted and even still

submit to the authority of the Church, nor will I ever fail in my obedience; but no

one is bound to yield to commands opposed to love and the law of God, since in

such case our superiors are no longer the representatives of the Lord.58

The leading citizens who supported Savonarola, wrote to the Pope on 8th July -

Most Holy Father, we are deeply afflicted to have incurred the ban of the Church,

not only because of the respect always entertained by our Republic for the Holy

Keys, but because we see that a most innocent man has been wrongfully and

maliciously accused to your Holiness. We deem this Prior to be a good and pious

man, and thoroughly versed in the Christian faith. He has laboured many years

for the welfare of our people, and no fault has ever been detected either in his life

or his doctrine. Wherefore we fervently implore your Holiness, in your paternal

and divine charity, to use your own judgment in this matter, and remove the

weight of your ban not only from Father Girolamo Savonarola, but from all those

who may have incurred it. Your Holiness could do no greater kindness to the

Republic, especially in this time of pestilence, in which bans are of grave peril to



58 ibid.


31

men’s souls.59

This was one of many letters sent through the remainder of the year, from the Republic

in Savonarola‟s defence.

1498 His last year – January and February. At the start of 1498 Savonarola was

engaged in writing and lecturing at St Mark‟s monastery. He was still excommunicated

by the authority of the Pope, but this seemed to fire him with new zeal and he almost

gloried in the notoriety it provided. In one piece he wrote (I have emphasised some of

the wording to draw attention to his attitude of mind) –

It is feared by some that, although this excommunication be powerless in

Heaven, it may have power in the Church. For me it is enough not to be

interdicted by Christ. O my Lord, if I should seek to be absolved from this

excommunication, let me be sent to hell. O Lord, you have thrown me into a

flood from which I have neither the power nor the will to escape. But I beseech

You to let no word pass my lips that may be opposed to the Holy Scriptures or to

the Church.60

Before Lent the Prior gave a powerful lecture in St. Mark‟s in which he denounced the

vices of the clergy. His passion for spiritual renewal is seen in these excerpts –

When I reflect on the life led by priests I am constrained to weep. O my brethren

and my children, shed tears for these woes of the Church, so that the Lord may

call the priests to repentance, for it is plain that terrible chastisement awaits

them. The tonsure is the seat of all iniquity. It begins in Rome, where the clergy

make mock of Christ and the saints. Not only do they refuse to suffer for the

Lord’s sake, but even traffic with the sacraments. Woe, woe to Italy and to Rome!

Come, come, O priests! Come, my brethren; let us do our best to revive a little of

our love of God! O Father, we shall be thrown into prison, we shall be persecuted

and done to death. So let it be! They may kill me as they please, but they will

never tear Christ from my heart. I am ready to die for my God.61

With the protection of his supporters and recognising that his excommunication was

invalid, Savonarola began to preach. In a sermon toward the end of the Carnival season

on 18th February, he spoke of the Pope and the papal authority -

I take it for granted there is no man who is not liable to error. You are mad to say

that a Pope cannot err, when there have been so many wicked Popes who have

erred! ... If it were true that no Pope could ever err, ought we then to do even as

they do in order to gain salvation? Go! read how many decrees have been made

by one Pope and revoked by the next; and how many opinions held by some





32

Popes are contradicted by those of other Pontiffs.62

He further illustrated this from all the contradictions in the Briefs launched against

himself.

On 26th February the Pope threatened the Council of Florence, saying that they had

allowed freedom to Savonarola to inflict a gross insult to the Holy See, and that unless

measures were taken to silence the Prior immediately, he would excommunicate the

whole city. This would have meant that all the churches would have been closed and all

sacraments prohibited.

Savonarola saw that the situation needed a proactive approach. So, instead of waiting

for each new ruling from Rome, he began plans for a new council called together to

depose Pope Alexander VI .

1498 His last year – March. The Pope threatened excommunication for the whole city

if the Council did not restrain Savonarola, and so on 17th March the Council met and

decided that Savonarola should be silenced. The next day, the third Sunday in Lent, he

gave his last sermon and said farewell to his people.

The Prior now resolved to make a final effort to form a council, both to defend his cause

and to see that the evil Pope was deposed. He had the documentary evidence to support

both objectives and hoped the necessity of reforming the Church would be proved, and

the work begun. He knew that King Charles VIII, was in favour of calling a council and

that when the King had been in Rome, eighteen Cardinals had encouraged him to depose

the Pope. Knowing this, Savonarola took the initiative and sent out what became known

as his famous „Letters to the Princes„. These were sent to the sovereigns of France,

Spain, England, Hungary, and Germany. Each letter was almost identical in content in

describing the urgent crisis and need for action.

The moment of vengeance has arrived, the Lord commands me to reveal new

secrets, and make manifest to the world the peril by which the bark of St. Peter is

threatened, owing to your long neglect. The Church is all teeming with

abomination, from the crown of her head to the soles of her feet; yet not only do

you apply no remedy, but you do homage to the cause of the woes by which she

is polluted. Wherefore, the Lord is greatly angered, and has long left the Church

without a shepherd. Now, I hereby testify, as the Lord’s word, that this Alexander

be no Pope, nor can he be held as one; inasmuch as, leaving aside the mortal sin

of simony, by which he has purchased the Papal Chair, and daily sells the

benefices of the Church to the highest bidder, and likewise putting aside his other

manifest vices, I declare that he is no Christian, and believes in no God, and so

surpasses the height of all infidelity.63

The letters then invited all the princes of Christendom to summon a council as soon as

possible. Savonarola‟s chief confidence was in King Charles, because he knew he was

62 ibid.



33

aware of the crisis and had a desire to call a council. So he was most keen to have a

reply to his letter from France. Instead he learned that the messenger sent with the

letter to France, had been robbed in Milan. The thieves realised the potent nature of the

letter and took it to the Duke of Milan who quickly delivered it to the Pope.

The Pope was in a rage and determined to use the documentary evidence that he now

had of the arrogance of the Prior and the complicity of the Council in Florence.

Trial by fire and arrest– April 1498. The most important preaching during Lent was

provided by Frà Francesco di Puglia, a Franciscan in the Church of St. Croce, and by Frà

Domenico, the Dominican brother who was preaching on behalf of his Prior. The

Franciscan gave much time to attacking Savonarola saying that he was a heretic and a

false prophet. But he went further and challenged him to prove the truth of his doctrines

by the „ordeal by fire‟.64 Frà Domenico took this attack personally because he felt that he

stood in the place of his Prior who had no opportunity to speak out to defend himself. He

said that he was willing to undergo the ordeal by fire because Savonarola needed to

reserve himself for greater things.

When the challenge was publicly known Savonarola had no time to be able to prevent it

happening. Some of his wealthy enemies convinced themselves that this was a

wonderful opportunity because; if he entered the fire he would be burnt. If he did not

take up the challenge then he would lose credibility and his followers would not protect

him; should there be an attempt to kill him. So they decided that they would give the

challenge maximum publicity. The trial by fire could no longer be avoided because the

city Council and the Pope were now insisting that it take place.

Savonarola would willingly have laid down his life and was appalled that an innocent life

should be risked for him. Reluctantly the Prior gave way in the face of Frà Domenico‟s

confidence and argument that the Lord would perform a miracle in order to confound the

Arrabiati and establish the truth of the new doctrine. He also reminded the Prior that he

had frequently said that his words would be confirmed by supernatural evidence. 65

On 1st April Savonarola gathered about 300 loyal supporters to St Mark‟s. He preached a

short sermon and outlined the situation. He said, ‘The time will come when the Lord shall

give supernatural signs and tokens; but this certainly cannot be at the command or at

the pleasure of man.’

Finally the 6th April was fixed as the date for the ordeal. Frà Domenico was to represent

the Dominicans and Frà Giuliano Rondinelli was accepted to represent the Franciscans.

From the moment the date was announced the community of St Mark‟s spent each day

in continual prayer. In the evening of 5th April they received a message from the Council

to say that the ordeal had been postponed to 7th April.

Paassen records the amazing hold that Savonarola still had and the fierce loyalty of his

friends –

On the 6th of April, 1498, Savonarola was still the effective and undisputed

64 This was a medieval form for determining guilt or innocence. A suspect was made to walk through a great fire and if they came out alive it was taken as a sign that God had protected the

innocent.



34

master of the Florentine state. He counted influential friends in the Grand Council,

the magistracy, and the clergy. He had devoted partisans and admirers in the

ministries of justice and foreign affairs. The overwhelming majority of the

common people was on his side. Tens of thousands of adherents of the popular

party in the city and the country were willing and ready to lay down their lives for

him.66

Within twenty-four hours, in an eruption of lies, hate and barbarism, Savonarola would

be beaten and delivered up helpless to his enemies.

The day arrived and the preparations were made for the ordeal to take place in the

Piazza. Because the emotions of the whole crowd were so volatile, the two parties

decided to come with armed escorts in order to ensure their safety in the event of a riot.

It seemed as if the whole population was concentrated in the Piazza. People were at all

the windows of the houses round the Square, and all balconies and roofs. Savonarola

knew that among them in the Piazza were about a thousand men who planned to attack

him. Yet he remained calm.

Everyone was focussed on the erected platform, which was about 25 metres long and

piled up with bundles of wood. It was about a metre high and a metre wide. Beneath it

were wood, gunpowder, oil, pitch, and resin to ensure a great blaze. Frà Domenico, was

ready for the ordeal but the Franciscan representatives could not be found. The crowd

had been gathered for hours and were now losing patience and shouted that the fire

should be lighted on one side of the platform, while the friars entered from the other,

then the fire should be ignited behind them to block any escape.

The Arrabiati announced that a fraud had been uncovered and that Savonarola had

refused to let his representative go through the ordeal. The Franciscans claimed a victory

even though their man had not turned up! But the response of the crowd was violent

and they were ready to lynch the Prior. It was with great difficulty that the Dominicans

reached the safety of the Monastery. There they found the congregation still kneeling in

prayer and so Savonarola entered the pulpit and explained what had happened and then

went to his cell in deep distress; while the crowd still shouted threats and banged on the

doors of the monastery, trying to get in.

The „ordeal by fire’ was contrived and manipulated by the Arrabiati and for their

purposes it was a total success. The majority of the city was now totally against

Savonarola and his monks, because he had failed the challenge of the fire. Even his

friends began to believe the Arrabiati and doubt that he had either the courage or the

faith to really trust God.

The next morning, 8th April, was Palm Sunday. On the surface things seemed calm but it

was the calm before a storm. Savonarola preached in St. Mark‟s and said that he was

ready to lay down his life and he gave the people a blessing in a way that hinted that

this would be the last time he would speak to them.

Later the crowd poured into the square outside St. Mark‟s and found the church full of

people praying. They attacked them with a hail of stones and panic broke out. Somehow

the doors were locked and the church emptied, except for a few citizens who intended to

defend the church. As darkness fell the siege intensified and the mob broke in. They



35

broke down several internal doors and came to the Chapel where the monks were

praying. Finding themselves under attack many of them fought back with whatever was

at hand – including wooden and metal crucifixes. Soon the Chapel was on fire.

The Council gave an order that Savonarola, Frà Domenico, and Frà Silvestro should

surrender themselves and they would not be harmed. Before surrendering Savonarola

addressed those friars present -

My beloved children …. My last exhortation to you is this: ‘let faith, prayer, and

patience be your weapons.’ I leave you with anguish and grief, to give myself into

my enemies’ hands. Take comfort, embrace the cross, and by it shall you find the

way of salvation.67

The pressing crowd seized Savonarola and Frà Domenico and ejected them into the

square in front of St. Mark‟s. The noise was so great that many thought the Prior had

that moment been killed by the rabble. It was one o‟clock in the morning when they had

them bound and took them to the Palace.

The officials communicated their actions to the Pope who was thrilled and declared the

Council to be true sons of the Church. He gave them absolution and blessing along with

his authorisation to examine, try, and torture the prisoners. But he made it very clear

that after trial the fate of the monks should be in his hands to carry through the

punishment they deserved. Even more thrilling for the Pope was the news that on the

same day as Savonarola‟s arrest, the King of France had died an ignominious death. In

the death of Charles, Savonarola lost his only hope of support and possible rescue.

Trial and torture - 26 April — 18 May, 1498. Frà Silvestro was captured later and

then each of the three prisoners was interrogated separately. Savonarola had been

tortured and examined repeatedly. The evil methods of torture had been developed in the

Spanish Inquisition68 and the monks were subjected to the rack and the boot. The rack

was a mechanism for pulling the arms and legs until they were twisted and out of joint.

The boot was a wooden framed shoe that was placed on one foot of the victim and was

tightened slowly and methodically to crush the bones of the foot and the lower leg.

Then from 25th of April until the Papal Commissioners arrived on 19th May, he had been

left quietly in his cell in the bell tower. At first he was so broken that he could do nothing,

but gradually he felt strength return to his right arm and he was able to write.

Being granted a pen and some paper, Savonarola began to write what would be a most

profound and widely circulated commentary on Psalm 5169, Miserere mei Deus. Lying on

the floor, he wrote –


68 The Spanish Inquisition began in 1478 when Spain's King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella wanted to do away with many of their political adversaries. These opponents were called the conversos, former Jews and Muslims who had been forced to convert to Christianity but had nevertheless managed to rise through the Spanish political and business ranks. They had no civil basis for removing these people so they asked for and received the approval of the Pope Sixtus IV, to torture those they thought were not true converts and by force elicit confessions which then gave

legal grounds for imposing the death penalty.

69 Psalm 50 in the Vulgate version


36

Sinner that I am, where shall I turn? To the Lord, whose mercy is infinite. None

may take glory in himself; all the saints tell us, ‘not unto us, but unto the Lord be

the glory’. They were not saved by their own merits, nor their own works; but by

the goodness and grace of God, wherefore none may take glory to himself. O

Lord, a thousand times You have wiped away my iniquity, yet a thousand times

have I fallen back into it. . . . But when Your Spirit shall descend upon me, when

Christ shall live within me; then shall I be safe. Strengthen me in your spirit, O

Lord. Not until then, can I teach your ways to the wicked. Had you asked the

sacrifice of my body, I would have given it before now; but burnt offerings are as

nothing to You; You would rather have the offering of the spirit. Therefore, O

sinner, bring your repentant heart unto the Lord, and nothing else shall be

required of you.

O incomprehensible God, to you I call because you are the reality, the sole reality,

the source and cause of all reality. You cannot change Your own essence and

nature. You must carry out your work which is to create, to love, to forgive, to

redeem, to bless. Look down upon my miserable state. My misery is great because

of my sins. I have sinned against you, against you who so loved me that you

came down from heaven to be crucified for me. O Lord, my God, my Rock and my

Redeemer, forgive, forgive my sins! Deep calls unto deep, the abyss of misery

calls to the abyss of divine mercy. The abyss of sin calls to the abyss of grace.

May Your abyss of mercy devour my abyss of sin and blot it out.

Then he continued –

Send the fire and the power and the love of the Holy Spirit upon your Church.

Your Church is so weak and feeble, dear Lord. There are so many millions in this

world who have not yet heard the words of truth and salvation from the holy

gospel. May the day not be far when all shall confess you as their Father and

know you as their Saviour. 70

This last sermon or meditation was sent to print immediately and became one of the

most influential pieces of Christian literature, remaining continuously in print in German

and Italian at least until the late 20th Century.71

As he ran out of paper, his last written words were –

Then, full of gladness, I exclaimed: I will put no trust in men, but only in the

Lord, and will return thanks before all the people, for the death of his saints is

precious in the Lord’s sight. If all the hosts of the world be arrayed against me,


71 Luther, who published (1523) the expositions with a notable preface, declared them "a piece of evangelical teaching and Christian piety. For, in them Savonarola is seen entering in not as a Dominican monk, trusting in his vows, the rules of his order, his cowl and masses and good works but clad in the breastplate of righteousness and armed with the shield of faith and the helmet of salvation, not as a member of the Order of Preachers but as an everyday Christian." Weimar ed. XII. 248. Within 50 years it had been translated into Spanish, German, English and French. In

Italy, it was used as a tract and put into the hands of prisoners condemned to death. It was embodied in the Salisbury Primer, 1538, and in Henry VIII‟s Primer, 1543.


37

my heart shall know no fear, for You are my refuge and will lead me to my end.72

Condemnation and execution 19-23 May 1498. When the Papal Commissioners

arrived in Florence on 19th May, they immediately dispelled any idea of a fair trial by

announcing that Savonarola would „die without fail’. They even had documents from

Rome instructing them to put him to death whatever the outcome of the trial. One of

them even declared, ‘We shall make a fine bonfire; I bear the sentence with me, already

prepared.’ 73

On 22nd May, after they had questioned him further, it was decided that they would not

be going to get the confession they wanted so they informed him that he would appear

before them the next day to receive his sentence. Finally that night, the sentences were

read to the prisoners. They were to be hanged and then burnt. Savonarola was asked if

he had a last request and he asked to be able to have a little time with the other two

monks. This was granted and the emotions must have been extraordinary as the three

friends met up again for the first time in more than forty days.

Savonarola urged them to go to their deaths – „following the example of the Lord Jesus

Christ, who went quietly and did not protest his innocence’. Their thoughts should be

fixed on God. He then gave them a blessing and they were parted from each other

again.

The next morning the three were allowed to meet for Communion and Savonarola

officiated. Then they were led to the Piazza where three platforms had been erected on

which stood three gibbets, each in the form of a cross. Attached to the gibbets were

chains with which to hang the monks and also to hold their corpses while they were

burnt.

The Bishop of Vasona read the Pope‟s mandate, and as he pronounced the degradation

he took Savonarola by the arm and in confusion said, „Separo te ab Ecclesia militante

atque triumphante.‟ Savonarola calmly corrected him saying: ‘Militante, non

triumphante: hoc enim tuum non est.‟ His formula referred to the Church on earth

(Militant) and the Church made up of those in heaven (Triumphant). He had announced,

„I exclude you from the militant and triumphant Church.‟ Savonarola‟s response was,

‘From the Church militant you may but from the Church triumphant you cannot’ 74

With great dignity and calm the three mounted the platforms. The Piazza was silent. The

first to be hung was Frà Silvestro, then Frà Domenico and then Savonarola. He was

forty-five years of age when his life was taken from him at 10 am. on 23rd May, 1498.

Pope Alexander VI. immediately issued a prohibition of the Prior‟s writings, but later

relaxed this and the writings were allowed to circulate informally. Being freed from the

criticism of the Prior, the Pope now became more immoral and irreligious in his actions

resorting to numerous assassinations and other crimes.

In 1901 a memorial slab of marble, was placed in the Piazza, on the spot where

Savonarola was executed. The inscription says, ‘Here, where with his brethren, Fra

Domenico Buonvicini and Fra Silvestro Maruffi, on May 23, 1498, by an iniquitous





38

sentence, Fra Girolamo Savonarola was hanged and burned, this memorial has been

placed after four centuries.’

4 The forgotten Father of Apologetics

He is the Father of the fullest and clearest Apologetic purpose.

Those before him, including Tertullian, Augustine, Athanasius, Anselm, Aquinas,

had a narrower Apologetic purpose for their arguments and their careful

reasonings are more narrowly focussed.

He is the Father of the most comprehensive method of presenting the Christian

Apologetic as an integrated whole.

c) He is the Father of an approach that is so competent that it is as effective in

dealing with the issues of the 21st Century as it was those of his day of the

15th Century.

d) He is the Father of the only approach that can provide an

answer for the weaknesses and blunders in present day Apologetics.

A brief history of Apologetics

The term „Apologetics‟ did not really come into formal use until it was adopted by

Friedrich D E Schleiermacher (1768 – 1834) to describe a particular theological discipline

or category of theological science. The term is derived from the Greek ‘apologeisthai’,

which embodies as its central notion the idea of 'defence.' But the Apologetic task was

being undertaken for centuries before it was given a formal title.

It is obvious from the history of Apologetics that there have been others who have made

major contributions. However I believe that the schema of Savonarola is of unique

significance and this is why I entitle him as Father of Apologetics.

Others presented a fragmented approach and sometimes they were even dismissive of

Apologetics. One of the greatest of the early theologians, Tertullian, asked the famous

rhetorical question, „What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?’ The implied answer was

„Nothing.‟ Tertullian urged the position, revived periodically, that since Christian

revelation contains all truth necessary to salvation, there is no need to dabble in pagan

wisdom and human reasoning.

Those writers who did engage in Apologetics generally had a narrow focus and addressed

issues that were of immediate concern rather than formulated a holistic Apologetic. One

of the first notable apologists was Justin Martyr (c. 100-165), a convert to Christianity

from Platonism. In his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, he tried to prove that Jesus is the

Messiah by reference to messianic prophecies from the Hebrew Scriptures. In his two

Apologies he appealed for tolerance for Christianity by refuting lies and rumours that had

been spread against the faith. (Lies such as, Christians eat the flesh and drink the blood

of a child, born of a virgin.) He was engaged in an apologetic activity even at a time

before the New Testament canon had been fixed.


39

Clement of Alexandria (c.150-215) wrote an apologetic work called Protrepticus, which

was more carefully reasoned than the earlier work of Justin Martyr.

Origen (c. 185-254) was the first to get into lengthy syllogisms as opposed to proof

texts. In his Contra Celsum, „Against Celsus’ he specifically refuted the criticism of

Celsus, who had rejected the history, ethics and philosophy of Christianity.

Augustine (354-430), the bishop of Hippo, was writing in a different age when

Christianity had become the dominant Worldview in the empire following the conversion

of Constantine. After his dramatic conversion he became the greatest theologian and

apologist up to that period. He wrote many diversified works on Apologetics and was the

first to build on St Paul‟s doctrine of the sovereignty of God in personal salvation. This

meant that his focus was on the doctrine of salvation, rather than defending the Church

from persecution and open attack. He believed that reason precedes faith in recognising

what is proposed is rational, but faith precedes reason when it comes to recognising the

loving offer of an invisible God. ‘For understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore do

not seek to understand in order to believe, but believe that you may understand.’ For

him, both faith and reason were supernatural gifts of God‟s activity in a person‟s life.

His philosophy was most fully developed in his greatest work, The City of God, which

was to be a strong influence in the thinking of Savonarola and may have partly been

influential in him coming to personal faith. We can see his influence on Savonarola in the

way he wove certain proofs together to affirm faith. He appealed to fulfilled prophecy,

the miracles of the bible and the miracle of thousands converting to Christianity in the

face of persecution.

Anselm (1033-1109) In the Middle Ages the Church had become established as the

central organ of western culture. So Apologetics became a scholastic exercise and

addressed philosophical issues. Two of the thinkers of this period stand out as apologists

and their ideas are still read and debated today. They were Anselm and Thomas Aquinas.

Anselm was Archbishop of Canterbury, and he built on Augustine‟s ideas of faith and

reason, emphasising that faith comes before reason in the regeneration of the sinner.

Once a person had come to faith then reason should be employed so that they may

come to an understanding of the Faith.

His key Apologetic idea has become known as the ontological argument. From the

Greek word „ontos’ meaning being. This argument can be interpreted in several ways

and is often rejected as an effective proof for God‟s existence. At its core is the

proposition that a God who can be conceived of as existing, must exist, because the

universe demands some reality to the concept of existence and being. Anselm said that

he wrote at the request of believers who felt their faith was being challenged and so he

clearly had an Apologetic purpose. But he was clear that people should put their faith in

Christ and not in some apologetic argument.

Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), taught at a time when the Arabs in Spain had re-


40

introduced the philosophy of Aristotle, to Christian Europe. His Summa Theologiae was a

systematic theology intended to counter Aristotle, but utilising many of his concepts

regarding knowledge. In his Apologetic introduction he asserts that some of God‟s truths

can be discerned by human reasoning, while other truths about God are only available

through divine revelation and a response of faith.

His key apologetic arguments are known as his five ways 75; five arguments for the

existence of God. God‟s existence may be inferred from the nature of the world as

changing, causative, contingent, graduated, and ordered (the five ways). Like Augustine

he also appealed to the conversion of the masses, fulfilled prophecy, and miracles.

In what sense is Savonarola a Father of Apologetics?

In claiming that Savonarola is a Father of Apologetics, it is important not to claim too

much. There were great Christian thinkers before him, whom he would acknowledge as

strong influences in his own life and reasoning. So I am not claiming that he was the first

apologist or that the others were faulty in their approach and he was the first to get

things right.

What I am asserting is that he was the first to clearly define the limits, the purpose, the

premises and to provide a totally holistic schema of the Christian Philosophy. He is the

one who thought through the implications of divine revelation in relation to faith and

reason. He is the one who introduces a clear concept of the action of grace in drawing us

to Christ. And his holistic approach means that the reader is not brought simply to a first

cause, as in Aquinas or Anselm, but actually brought to Christ as saviour, who is

absolutely central to the whole schema.

5 The forgotten Father of Apologetics

His major work, The Triumph of the Cross, has been unavailable for over one

hundred years. It was known and its teaching valued by the Christian leaders of the

late 19th Century, but now it is unknown.

His integrated approach with the whole of Christianity as the Apologetic argument

has been forgotten and lost, by today‟s apologists.

Failure to heed his insights and adopt his approach led to a loss of nerve and

confusion in 20th Century Apologetics.

I claim that he is the forgotten Father of Apologetics, because in the past he had great

influence and his teaching was highly valued. But in the English-speaking world, after his

work received significant attention in the Victorian period, it then began to fade from

memory. What did remain were some of his concise syllogisms, that are still quoted

75 Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, 1a. 2,3.


41

today, but usually by people who have no idea of their provenance. Eventually his major

work went out of print and became unavailable, except in two or three academic

libraries.

In a few pages, it is worth recording how this amnesia set in; following a strong

appreciation at the beginning.

Those who were inspired by Savonarola and mourned his death, did not leave the

Catholic Church but remained loyal. In the 18th Century, Pope Benedict XIV judged him

worthy of canonization and some of his works were used as textbooks for Catholic

schools. 76

And it is impossible for anyone to read them without being firmly convinced that,

to the day of his death, Savonarola remained unswervingly faithful to the dogmas

of his faith; and that instead of seeking to destroy the unity of the Church, it was

his constant desire to render it still more complete.77

The Triumph of the Cross went through many editions in the 15th Century. Later

printings made it available in Spanish, German, French, Hungarian, Provençal, and

Flemish. It became a key text in the curriculum at the College for the Propaganda of the

Faith in Rome where those training to be missionaries were taught.

Michelangelo Buonarroti (1475 – 1504). It is probably through Savonarola‟s sermons

and writings that Michelangelo came to faith in Christ. It is said that these sermons were

the inspiration for the artist‟s painting of the Sistine chapel, which was accomplished a

few years after the Prior‟s death. During the whole project, his only reading material was

a Bible and a copy of the sermons of Savonarola. 78

Protestant Reformers, many reformers saw him as a courageous forerunner. John

Calvin (1509 – 1564) and Martin Luther (1483 – 1546) both held Savonarola in high

regard and valued his writings. Luther published Savonarola‟s Commentary on Psalm 51,

which had been written in prison, and declared Savonarola to be a precursor of the

Protestant doctrine and one of the martyrs of the Reformation. Luther called him a saint,

writing -

This man was put to death solely for having desired that someone should come to

purify the slough of Rome. It was the Antichrist’s (Pope‟s) hope that all

remembrance of this great man would perish under a load of malediction; but you

see that it still lives and that his memory is blessed. Jesus Christ proclaims him a

saint through our lips, even though Pope and Papists should burst with rage. Even

by these writings, you shall see how works are of no avail in God’s sight, and how

faith is the one thing needful. What if some theological mud be still found sticking

76 His Trionfo della Croce was republished by the Propaganda Fide; his Semplicità della Vita Cristiana was translated by a Jesuit into French and republished in Paris in 1672; his Confessionale was frequently reprinted, with very slight alterations, and used as a Manual for confessors.

77 Villari – Book 4, Conclusion

78 Charles De Tolnay, The Youth of Michelangelo, Princeton University Press. Princeton, NJ. 1943. Page 20.


42

to his feet, who could be altogether free of it in those days? You wilt likewise see

his distrust and despair of his own strength, and a pure image of faith and hope

in God’s mercy. Neither in the strength of his vows nor the rule of his Order,

neither in his priestly robe, in masses, nor in works, did he rest his hope, but

solely in the Gospel, in faith, and in righteousness. 79

In 1868, an attempt was made to claim Savonarola as one of the precursors of the

Reformation, by placing his name on the monument for Martin Luther, erected at Worms

in Germany. A French Dominican, Père M. Rouard, protested against this in a pamphlet

in defence of Savonarola‟s Catholic orthodoxy.80 But the major focus of the Reformation

was on the Church and so Luther and Calvin did not make great use of his apologetic

material.

John Colet. (1467 - 1519) In England he was a prime influence in the life and ministry

of John Colet, who had been in Florence and studied with the Prior. He returned to

England in 1496 and began to preach in the style of Savonarola. He interpreted

Humanism with a Christian bias believing the Scriptures are the final authority for the

believer and the full revelation of salvation. Like the Prior, he attacked the abuses and

idolatry in the Church. Though he wanted reformation, he would never have considered

leaving the Catholic Church. Like his Florentine hero, he went on to be charged with

heresy, in 1512, but the Bishop of London dismissed the case. Colet became Dean of St

Paul‟s Cathedral in London and the founder of St Paul‟s School. Through Colet, the

Triumph of the Cross became very influential in the life of the English Church and

particularly guided those who composed the Book of Common Prayer.

Lacordaire (1802 – 1861), the great Dominican preacher of Notre Dame in Paris, used

The Triumph of the Cross as the basis for a series of sermons and he praised the Prior

for his extensive learning which „embraced nearly the whole philosophic knowledge of his

time.‟ 81

Bias in use.

There has often been a strong bias in the approach of translators and in the way this

text has been used.

Odell Travers Hill Translation 1868. Travers Hill in his preface to his introduction,

talks about Savonarola as an apologist.

That the execution of the work, its rigid adherence to its first principle, its

freedom from all sectarian spirit, from all scholastic cripplings, its close

79 Villari – Book 4 Chapter 10

80 This was translated and published by Comm. C. Guasti in the Rivista Universale, Annali

Cattolici, vol. V. Genoa and Florence, 1867.



43

consecutive reasoning, its earnestness, convince us that its author was a man far

in advance of his age. In point of style it might have been written yesterday, a

marvellous work and by one of our greatest intellects.

The translator feels justified therefore in bringing this valuable work before the

English public for the first time. He has searched in vain for any trace of an

English translation, and can only find that an abbreviated addition, about one-

third of the volume, was brought out in Puritan times, dedicated to the scoffers

and scholars of gospel in those days; an edition long extinct. This translation has

been made from a valuable copy printed with all the abbreviations peculiar to

Savonarola's manuscript and found in the archives of Sion College.

Travers Hill‟s translation ignores completely the whole of chapters 15, 16 and 18. These

chapters refer to the seven sacraments. Proctor says, ‘All of this is to make Savonarola

a Protestant and a precursor to Luther and Calvin, whereas he was a true Catholic.’ 82

His Introduction83 to his translation has many errors and he is confused about dates and

the order of the Medici rulers.

Travers Hill shows his Evangelical bias in his preface, stating, „This is a rational defence

of Christianity, conducted without appeal to authority or tradition. This book is free from

all sectarian feelings.’ In writing this, Travers Hill is as guilty of bending the evidence as

Proctor is in making his criticism. Savonarola in this work does provide a most effective

apologetic for the primary truths of orthodox Christianity, but he also includes strong

affirmation of secondary dogmas of the Catholic Church of his day. Dogmas which would

be seen as most sectarian and refuted by the major Church Reformers – such as Luther

and Calvin.

Proctor in his introduction, says that Travers Hill is not an honest translation, because

whole chapters are left out to make the work palatable to a particular readership. He

says, ‘To claim it is a translation is to claim a garden fence in London is the Great Wall of

China or Primrose Hill is a replica of the Alps. It removes all reference to Mary, the host

of the Communion, chalice and relics.’ 84

Fr. John Proctor’s Translation 1901. Proctor‟s assertion that Travers Hill has edited

the text to deliberately make Savonarola look like a Reformer, is not entirely fair. This is

because Savonarola‟s whole life was a passion for reformation. It is also factually untrue

when Proctor says that Travers Hill‟s translation removes all Catholic dogma.

Proctor as Provincial of the Dominicans, was wanting to rehabilitate Savonarola, a fellow

Dominican.85 As a result, he reads with a Roman Catholic bias and misses the

importance of some of Savonarola's points regarding reform and salvation by grace

82 John Proctor, translator, The Triumph of the Cross, Sands and Company, London, 1901. from Introduction.

83 O'Dell Travers Hill, translator, The Triumph Of The Cross, Hodder, London 1868. Introduction


85 The Dominicans have never disowned Savonarola and have made moves to have him beatified.

This has always been opposed by the Jesuits who condemn him because of his call for the overthrow of the Papacy of Alexander Borgia.


44

alone.

He defends Savonarola as if he were an orthodox Catholic who had always been in faith

and harmony with the Roman Church. But he completely misses the context of the open

conflict between Savonarola and the Popes and the leaders of the Church in Rome. On

one occasion Savonarola wrote to the kings of France, England, Spain, and Germany,

urging them to depose Pope Alexander Borgia and to form a Council to reform the

Church. He was tortured to make him recant his teaching and the Church declared him

to be a heretic, and put him to death. The Dominicans say this was unjust (certainly his

conviction was irregular) but the Jesuits say it was justified because in challenging the

Pope, he opposed God‟s office holder.

Evangelicals of the 19th and 20th Centuries. Proctor in his Introduction, objects

strongly to the way the Victorian Evangelicals had celebrated Savonarola and his

writings. He claims that the Friar was a true Catholic and never a Reformer. He writes,

Villari says Savonarola's attacks are never against dogmas of the Church but

solely against those who corrupted them. The Savonarola of the English is one

created by non-Catholics and by anti-Catholic romantics and unscrupulous

translators. 86

Proctor writes in this way because Victorian Evangelicals had found a great apologetic

tool in the Travers Hill translation, and went on to promote Savonarola as a pre-

Reformer.

Charles Haddon Spurgeon, (1834 – 1892). Spurgeon in his publication, The Sword

and the Trowel, The Florentine Monk, April 1869, used the work of Travers Hill, published

the previous year, to adopt Savonarola as the patron of a new Evangelical movement in

Florence in 1869. But he also makes a judgement of this work –

The question has often been asked, How far was Savonarola the herald of

Protestantism? The best answer to that question is, we think, furnished in his

admirable work—far ahead of the times in which it was written—’The Triumph of

the Cross.’ We are glad that those enterprising publishers, Messrs. Hodder and

Stoughton have brought it out in a cheap and handsome form. For the sake of the

memory of the martyr, it should be read; for the sake of the truths it so

luminously sets forth, it deserves a wide circulation. Mr. Travers Hill, beside

writing an interesting sketch of the Italian Reformer's life, has ably translated the

work. At a time when the church held every one in bondage, when the Scriptures

were hid from view, and the masses were ignorant of the way of salvation—when

darkness covered the earth and gross darkness the people—when the church to

which every one bowed in lowly submission was so corrupt as to allow a pope

stained with every crime to preside over it—and when Luther's shrill testimony

had not as yet been given—it is pleasant to find words of such evangelic power

written in the cloister of a monastery. Though Savonarola was wedded to many of

the errors of the church, yet his testimony in favour of justification by faith and



45

not by works, the forgiveness of sins by Christ and not by man, was clear and

decisive. His object was undoubtedly to purify the Church of Rome, not to destroy

it; but it is evident that throughout his life he was, if loyal to his Church, far more

loyal to Christ.87

Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield (1851 – 1921) was the principal of Princeton

Seminary in the USA. Through the Travers Hill translation he was aware of The Triumph

of the Cross, and he speaks of Savonarola as an apologist. His own work on Apologetics

draws on the teaching of Savonarola.

The Renaissance, with its repristination of heathenism, naturally called out a

series of new apologists (Savonarola, Marsilius Ficinus, Ludovicus Vives), but the

Reformation forced polemics into the foreground and drove Apologetics out of

sight, although, of course, the great theologians of the Reformation era brought

their rich contribution to the accumulating apologetical material.88

Clive Staples Lewis (1898 – 1963). CS Lewis, the Irish Professor of Literature, was a

popular writer on Apologetics. His specialist area of study was the literature of the

Renaissance and he makes use of several of the apologetic syllogisms of Savonarola.

These consist of concise deductive arguments, which have a power and beauty in their

brevity and simplicity.

Let us approach the issue in this way - either Christ is the true God and the First

Cause of all things, or He is not. 89 If He is God, it follows that Christianity is true;

and there is no need for further discussion. If He is not God, He must have been

the proudest man, and the greatest liar that ever lived. He must also have been

exceedingly foolish. 90

This attitude toward Savonarola among Victorian USA and UK Evangelicals was revived

almost one hundred years later, in 1961, when a précis of Travers Hill‟s translation was

published in a volume called Valiant for the Truth.

87 CH Spurgeon in his publication, The Sword and the Trowel, The Florentine Monk,

London,1869.

88 BB Warfield, Apologetics; available at www.graceonlinelibrary.org/articles/full

89 C. S. Lewis famously uses this argument in his book, Mere Christianity,

I'm trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about him: 'I am ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept his claim to be God.' That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic on a level with the man who

says he is a poached egg or else he would be the devil of hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon; or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronising nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to. - Mere Christianity, Collins, London 1952 pages 51-53.

90 TOTC –page 121


46

Joachim Weinhardt (1998) In continental Europe The Triumph of the Cross has been

better known and available in German and Italian. As recently as 1998, Joachim

Weinhardt wrote his PhD thesis on, „Savonarola als Apologet‟, for the University of

Tubingen, Germany. This was published by Walter de Gruyter & Co, Berlin, in 2003.

From his Abstract, it is clear that the thrust of his thesis is to establish that Savonarola

built his Apologetics on Aristotelian empiricism and deductive methodology. It would

appear that his interest is in the origin of the ideas rather than in the analysis of the

schema that makes up The Triumph of the Cross.

Forgotten by 21st Century Apologists

But now his schema and his writing are forgotten or have never been known by the

majority of serious Apologists. A close inspection of the wide range of writings from

Christians such as Alvin Plantinga, William Lane Craig, John Warwick Montgomery, Josh

MacDowell, Phil Fernandes, and many others, reveals nothing of any significance or

understanding of Savonarola. The 400 page Handbook of Christian Apologetics:

Hundreds of Answers to Crucial Questions; by Peter Kreeft and Ronald K. Tacelli,91 has

an extensive listing of apologists – but no mention of Savonarola.

Alvin Plantinga and William Lane Craig are known for being leading proponents of

Molinism92, yet seem unaware that the teaching of Molin was not original but based on

Savonarola.

As we shall see, if today‟s apologists were aware of Savonarola‟s teaching they would

have found the key to several of the Apologetic problems of presentation.

One who has not overlooked Savonarola is Cardinal Avery Dulles, the foremost Catholic

Apologist. But his references93 to him are restricted to note his historical context and

that he was influenced by Aquinas.

Today‟s Catholics often hold Savonarola in high esteem and think that the church could

still stand some reform. As mentioned earlier, a new Italian edition was published in

2001, Il trionfo della croce. La ragionevolezza della fede: „The Triumph of the

Cross. The reasonableness of faith‟ by Prof. Giorgio Carbone OP and published by

Edizioni Studio Domenicano, in Italy. This Dominican publisher continues to seek the

rehabilitation of Savonarola and the publication seeks to use the work as an apologetic

(defence) for Savonarola as well as a foundation for faith.

6 His Authority

91 Published by Inter Varsity Press, Downers Grove.1994.

92 An explanation of Molinism is given later in this thesis.

93 Avery Dulles, A History of Apologetics, Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 2005


47

He preached prophetically and in a way that sounded as if his revelations were the

authority for what he said. But closer examination shows that he had little confidence in

himself as an authority to be appealed to in argument. His writings and sermons are

permeated with Scripture as the final authority, though he did regard his ordination and

license to preach as authority conferred upon him by Christ through the Church. But that

Church only has authority when it itself is under authority. Explicitly he gave special

emphasis to the authority of the Bible, over the Church. ‘I preach the regeneration of

the church, taking the Scriptures as my sole guide.’

7 His use of Scripture

For Savonarola the key to interpreting the Scriptures was to be found in prayer and a

prayerful submissive attitude before the Word of God. He quotes the words of Jesus

concerning the need for „spirit and truth‟ in the worshipper, and applies it to the

ceremonies and exterior rites of the Church in its approach to Scripture. ‘The hour

comes, and now is, when true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth'

John 4: 21-23.

He saw the interface with Scripture as an opportunity to meet with Christ and to

understand something of the mind of Christ. The reader should be inspired by Scripture.

„The love of Jesus Christ is the lively affection inspiring the faithful with the desire to

bring his soul into unity, as it were, with that of Christ, and live the life of the Lord, not

by external imitation, but by inward and Divine inspiration.’ 94

His foundational belief was in the final authority of Scripture. This was not a belief that

was held by most of his contemporaries who normally looked for direction from earthly

authorities. This is the reason for him not claiming or appealing to any authority in his

Triumph of the Cross. He writes, „We will not appeal to any authority, no matter how

learned they may be. Instead, we shall proceed as if we had confidence in no one, and

depend on reason alone.’ 95

For him it was natural to trust the authority of Scripture and he could not understand

how anyone could resist the Word of the Lord. It was the Bible that had been his guide

as a youth; his consolation in grief and it had educated and formed his mind. As noted, it

is probable that he had memorised the whole Bible before the age of twenty.

The Bible was his main focus of study and meditation. For him it was a living means of

communication, revelation and inspiration. He could not even open the Bible without a

sense of awe at holding and reading the Word from God.

As taught by his grandfather, he continued to cover the margins of his Bible with notes

to record his insights and interpretations of each passage. Though he seemed able to

find a Scripture to describe and direct every course of action, yet he was careful about

using proof texts. He urged great care in coming to an interpretation of a passage. He

wrote the following directions in one of his marginal notes –


95 TOTC – Page 82


48

It is necessary to be acquainted with languages and history, to continually read

and have long familiarity (with the Bible); it is necessary to be careful not to run

counter to reason. We must not turn the Bible to our own ends, for by so doing

the human intellect would usurp the place of the Divine Word.

Divine grace shall be his guide. Therefore let the faithful prepare himself to read

the Bible by great purity of heart, by long practice of charity, by raising his

thoughts above earthly things; for we may not comprehend this book by the

intellect alone, but must also bring our heart and soul to the task. Only in this

way can we enter without peril into this infinite world of the Holy Scriptures, and

obtain the light needed for our salvation.96

His sermons and his writings reveal his practical hermeneutical approach. His first step

was to try to determine the plain meaning of the text. To do this he analysed the text by

reference to the original languages of Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic. Next he took note of

the historical context of the text and also gave due attention to the literary genre of the

text – prophetic, narrative, poetic, apocalyptic, etc.

Having looked at the plain meaning and message of the text and what it might have

meant for the original author and readership, he moved to his next focus of attention.

What was the reason that the Holy Spirit had for including the text in Scripture and

preserving it for the instruction and correction of his generation? At this stage his

method was to assign each passage to four categories of interpretation - spiritual, moral,

allegorical, and anagogical (mystical).

Looking back on this period from our vantage point in the 21st Century we need to

realise that most people at most places and at most times in the history of the

Church – have not had access to a Bible. In our day we have developed a devotional

discipline expected of each believer that involves reading and reflecting on the

Scriptures. What we have to realise is that for most people that form of devotion was an

impossibility. Therefore there was more emphasis on the public reading of Scripture and

a spirituality that focussed more on the sacraments and the Church. The fact that for

long periods only the clergy had access to the Scriptures, gave them a position of power.

Savonarola lived at the moment of change. Printing had made the Scriptures available to

many and would soon enable all literate people to have their own copy. His response

was to elevate, teach and expound the Scriptures – and then send the people to read

the Word for themselves.

8 His use of Philosophy

Savonarola was of the opinion that: 'An old woman knows more about the Faith than

Plato.' 97 This was his response to a city filled with the philosophy of Plato and the

ancients which came from the east through the teaching of those expelled from


97 V. H. H. Green, Renaissance and Reformation: A Survey of European History between 1450 and 1660; Edward Arnold, London. 1952. Page 118.


49

Constantinople, and with the philosophy of Aristotle from the west through Islamic

Scholars expelled from Spain.

His own early education had centred on the teaching of the Dominican, Aquinas, and the

philosophy of Aristotle. On arrival in Florence he met up with Marsilio Ficino of the

Platonic Academy. He always evaluated every philosophy by the one fundamental

certainty which he held – that man has a purpose and that the grace of God has made

provision in Christ to enable that purpose to be fulfilled.

It is right here that he parts company with Aquinas who conceded too much to Aristotle.

As the Cambridge Academic, Angela Tilby has carefully explained –

Thomas Aquinas the great Dominican theologian of the 12th Century, believed in

the authority of Scripture, but tried to marry this to the insights of deductive

reason. His whole theological achievement was an attempt to reconcile Christian

doctrine with the philosophy of Aristotle. 98

Up to Aquinas the Church had tended toward the philosophy of Plato with its emphasis

on „essence’ as the true reality. This concept saw the present world as transient and the

objects we experience with our senses as changeable, but the essence of these objects

was fixed and eternal; existing in some spiritual realm. This was easy for the Church to

accommodate with its teaching on the division of the universe into the inherently

imperfect, corrupt world of material existence and the perfect , heavenly world of the

Spirit.

Aristotle maintained that „existence‟ is primary and that what we experience through our

senses is reality. According to Plato, existence, or the everyday world of objects such as

tables, chairs, and dogs, is inherently inferior to essence. Savonarola concluded that

Plato‟s theory was deficient, because it is unable to explain the origin of existence. Both

of the two ancient philosophies led to deficient definitions of the human soul, reality and

creation.

Again, if any one will read the philosophical books dealing with the universe, its

purpose, and its supposed beginning and end, he will find almost as many errors

as there are words. And, although Aristotle and some of his followers have tried

to prove that the world is eternal, the Aristotelian arguments are so weak, that

any educated man could easily refute them.99

Savonarola takes the concept of „essence’ and says that the real „essence’ is within.

It cannot be denied that an intelligent mind is the essence of what makes us

human. Everyone acknowledges that it is the rationality of man which

distinguishes him from other animals. This distinction could not exist if a rational

soul were not the essence of a man. 100

The Prior‟s principle objection to Aristotle and Plato was that their whole philosophy goes

98 Angela Tilby, Science and the Soul, SPCK, London 1992, page 121

99 TOTC – Page 172.



50

nowhere but stops at the contemplation of speculative science. In his Sermon 22 on the

Book of Exodus, he underlined his position:

And I say this because some people want to make all of Plato Christian. Rather,

let Plato be Plato and Aristotle be Aristotle; do not make them Christians, because

they are not.101

In the Triumph of the Cross, he asserts –

Philosophers entangle themselves as they try to discover the goal of human life,

by natural reason. Nor can they be expected to speak with certainty or clarity

about religion or about virtuous living when they ignore the most important

element of life. We need not, therefore, be surprised, that the religious systems

of the philosophers are imperfect, and filled with error.102

He was obviously a child of his age with the same scientific assumptions as his fellows.

For example, this means that he understands the principles of gravity, but not the laws

governing it. So he accepts and argues from the Greek philosophical concept of the

elements.

The stars and planets are more remote from earth than the elements103, and the

elements are universal causes of things on earth104

He also accepts the principles of philosophical thought and in The Triumph of the Cross,

he gratefully uses the science of logic - particularly using inductive arguments to proceed

from the known to the unknown.

9 His use of logic

Aristotle believed that nothing exists within the conscious mind that has not been

experienced first by the senses. All our thoughts and ideas have come into our

consciousness through what we have heard and seen. But we also have innate power of

reason. He saw this as the most distinguishing faculty of humanity but still believed that

our reasoning is completely empty until we have sensed something. So we have no

innate ideas.

He also noticed that the reasoning method of the human mind is to classify and group

experiences and entities. He began a study of the real world believing that everything

101 Timothy Verdon Contributor, John Henderson, editor, Christianity and the Renaissance: Image and Religious Imagination in the Quattrocento, Syracuse University Press. Syracuse, NY. 1990. Page 527.


103 Elements – in Greek philosophy the four elements are fire, earth, air and water. They were

seen as the cause of weather and climate.



51

could be categorised and organised. From this organising of categories he went on to

develop his idea of logic - which was a way of reasoning about the relationships between

categories.

When Thomas Aquinas took up the insights of Aristotle, he embraced the ideal of

categories and became a prolific writer and great systematiser of ideas. Colin Brown

suggests that much of his thought was not original, but what he learned from others was

worked into great schemes – particularly in his Summa Theologiae. In this he presented

a synthesis of Aristotelian logic and Christian theology in the conviction that there can be

no contradiction between the truths of faith, based on divine revelation, and those of

human reason. Some truths, such as that of the mystery of the incarnation, can be

known only through revelation, and others, such as that of the material world, only

through experience; still others, such as that of the existence of God, are known through

both equally. All knowledge originates in sensation, but sense data can be made

intelligible only by the activity of the intellect, which elevates thought toward knowledge

of God.

Savonarola took up the deductive logic of Aristotle and the insights of Aquinas, because

they provided the „grammar’ to enable him to reason and communicate.

It is interesting to note that even though the Protestant Reformers demanded total

reliance on Scripture, they too, relied on Aristotle‟s methods to engage in theological

reasoning as well as in biblical interpretation. All of them had been taught his deductive

logic and gave reason an important place in their theology. Luther used reason as a

means to develop a dogmatic theology. While Calvin was able to interpret some

Scriptures simply by appeal to the teaching of Aristotle105. When they debated and

argued, they used scholastic logic; seen especially in such documents as those produced

at the Synod of Dort. This is the form of argument Savonarola uses. It is lifted from the

method of Aquinas in his Summa Theologiae. The argument is presented, then the

counter argument is considered and finally a rebuttal of the counter argument is offered.

10 His Apologetic Purpose

Why do we need Apologetics? Who is the target audience? What is the purpose?.

Savonarola helps us see what Apologetics involves and how it relates to faith. But most

powerfully he defines the role and purpose of Apologetics.

The Scriptures command our involvement in the apologetic task and he expounds the

teaching it gives -

1 Peter 3:15 But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to

give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope

that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect,

Titus 1:9 He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught,

105 A case in point is Calvin’s explanation of predestination in Ephesians 1:5 in which he drew on Aristotle’s fourfold notion of causation. What is interesting in this passage is the fact that Calvin adopts without question Aristotelian categories in order to express his understanding of Biblical

teaching. Colin Brown, Christianity And Western Thought, Volume One, Inter Varsity Press, Downers Grove, Illinois, 1990. Page 153


52

so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who

oppose it.

Jude 1:3 Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the

salvation we share, I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith

that was once for all entrusted to the saints.

We are called to – be prepared with reasons and answers, to encourage, oppose, and

contend for the Truth, which has been revealed. The purpose is -

To confirm the faith of people whose belief has been shaken106

He wanted to re-affirm the faith of those who had been shaken by the secular „wisdom of

their day‟. In doing this he sought to protect the weak and guard the faithful. He wanted

to help faith come to an understanding of itself – to become settled in the mind and

heart of the believer. Here, like Anselm in his celebrated phrase Credo ut Intelligam – „I

believe so that I may understand’, faith comes first and is not created by the reasoning.

We are not saying that these proofs are what cause Christians to believe.

Christians are established in their faith through the special revelation of God;

otherwise, their faith would not be a matter of trust, but opinion. But such

evidences confirm us in our Faith, and prove to our adversaries that our believing

is not mindless, but thoughtful and with intellectual rigour. 107

There are those who are enlightened by God, and have embraced the Faith,

without proofs. They then go on to strengthen their own belief and that of others,

by investigating the grounds of their faith. These deserve praise because they

obey the instruction of St. Peter ‘in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always

be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for

the hope that you have’. (1 Peter 3:15) 108

This purpose of protecting and preserving faith is fundamentally important. We have

grossly underestimated the way in which our young people have had their faith eaten

away and some who have looked for reassurance but found no answers have turned into

the fiercest opponents of the Christian faith. 109

106 TOTC – Page 81

107 TOTC – page 83


109 David Sanford, in his book, If God Disappears: 9 Faith Wreckers and What to Do about Them; Tyndale, Wheaton. 2008. Page 15, writes - I haven’t always believed that. In fact, my father is an atheist. I was raised to not believe in God. When I became a Christian, my dad saw it as an act of rebellion. Later, I studied under a German existentialist philosopher. I dared her to

prove there isn’t a God. ‘If you’re right,’ I said, in essence, ‘I’ll stop being a Christian.’ Instead, after studying the writings of the most renowned atheists of the past four centuries, my Christian faith was stronger than ever.

Why is it, I wondered, that these men and women can write brilliantly about any area of philosophy, but they get so angry and irrational when writing about God, the church, and the Christian faith?

After studying their biographies, I discovered the most common reason: Very bad things happened

to them or their loved ones, often when they were very young. Many even went on to study in


53

One example is Jean Paul Sartre who was one of the most influential atheistic

philosophers of the last century. As a teenager his doubts and questions about the

rationality of faith caused him to reject God and religion. But shortly before his death,

Sartre relented. The Nouvel Observateur records these words: ‘I do not feel that I am

the product of chance, a speck of dust in the universe, but someone who was expected,

prepared, prefigured. In short, a being whom only a Creator could put here; and this

idea of a creating hand refers to God.’ 110

To Prepare unbelievers for the reception of supernatural enlightenment111

He wanted to challenge the intellectuals of his day, with reasons, to open their minds up

to the philosophical consistency of the Christian faith. In doing this there was the hope

that they might also have their hearts opened to the gospel.

Our Faith cannot be proved by natural principles and causes. But, the past and

present events of Church history do afford arguments in support of our religion

that are so convincing that no logical mind can reject them. At the same time, no

one believes that faith itself depends upon these arguments, seeing that it is ‘the

gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast’. (Ephes. 2:8-9)

To use human reasoning for such purposes does not detract from the value of

faith. The saying that faith proved by argument has no merit, refers only to the

faith of people who refuse to believe without proof. 112

He admits that grace is by revelation not reason, but he believed, like Gresham Machen

-

It is true that argument alone will not make a man a Christian. But because

argument is insufficient it does not follow that argument is unnecessary.113

Savonarola states

It could look like a waste of time to evaluate and analyse our Faith, when it is

based on the miraculous works of our Saviour Jesus Christ (which are obvious to

the whole world) and on the teaching of venerable theologians. Nevertheless,

there are men living today in such bondage to sin, that, even in the light of the

noonday sun, they grope in darkness, and scorn the marvels of heavenly science.

I am, therefore, on fire with zeal for the House of God114, and concerned for the

seminary, but they didn’t find the answers they were looking for. So they turned against God with a vengeance. It can happen to any of us.

110 This statement originally appeared in French in Nouvel Observateur. It first appeared in English in National Review, June 11, 1982



113 Gresham Machen, The Importance of Christian Scholarship in the Defence of the Gospel. A reprinted talk given in London in 1932 and reproduced in New Reformation

Magazine, September 1996

114 Psalm 69:9 - for zeal for your house consumes me, and the insults of those who insult you fall


54

salvation of these misguided men. I want to rouse them from their slumber and

bring to their memory, the things of Christ, which they have either forgotten or

driven from their hearts.115

To enable the faithful to refute the arguments of non-believers. 116

Savonarola identifies the need, not just to refute the arguments of non-believers, but to

enable the ordinary believer to do so. For him Apologetics was not just the domain of the

professional, but like St Peter, he saw the need for every believer to have a reason for

his or her hope in Christ. Sadly we have forgotten and lost this purpose.

But his aim also was to enable the believer to refute the arguments of non-believers.

This might appear a more ambitious aim, yet with some teaching it is possible to equip

people to expose the inconsistencies of secular arguments.

For example a dominant influence in European culture is Secular Humanism. It holds

sway in the media and in the academic world. Its Worldview and aims are set out in its

Manifestos117 1 and 2 and a revision in 2000.118 In 1933 Humanism saw itself as a new

religion - without God. Humanists believed that man could find the answer to everything,

create new morality, bring world peace, and issue in a utopia – because the idea of God

was being eliminated. But that belief is refuted because in practise none of these things

followed .

Manifesto 2 asserted that,

No deity will save us; man is mankind’s only hope.

Ethics are autonomous – each person decides what is right and wrong.

Human life has meaning because we are the ones who develop our futures.

Sexual expression has been repressed by intolerant religious sanctions but we

believe there should be a right to abortion, divorce and sexual activity between

consenting adults.

Their inconsistencies are exposed in that they are against rape and incest, but have no

ground for saying so, because they have no belief in „right and wrong’ believing each

person can choose their own actions and behaviour. Instead of bringing human life to

maturity, it has become a culture of death and disease.

d) To expose the irrationality of non-believers’ arguments so that simple

on me.



117 Paul Kurtz, editor, Humanist Manifestos I and II, Prometheus Books 1984

118 Paul Kurtz, editor, Humanist Manifesto 2000: A Call for New Planetary Humanism, Prometheus Books 2000


55

and uneducated people are released from the deception played

on them119

He believed that the Christian Faith is grounded in truth, therefore any philosophy or

argument which opposed the Faith must be false and open to being refuted. He realised

that this was something that required divine assistance from the God of truth.

Unfortunately, today such confidence in the truth has been lost and ground has been

yielded to atheistic arguments, which should have never been surrendered. Gresham

Machen laments this when he says,

There are some perils that should be avoided, in particular the peril of

acquainting ourselves of what is said against the Christian religion without ever

obtaining any really orderly acquaintance with what can be said for it. The

Christian religion flourishes not in the darkness but in the light. Intellectual

slothfulness is no remedy for unbelief. The true remedy is consecration of

intellectual powers to the service of our Lord Jesus Christ.120

11 His Apologetic Premises

His epistemology121 compared to 21st Century theories

How do we gain knowledge? How do we know what is true and truth? There is

induction, which is simply gathering the available evidence. Deduction is working with

the evidence so that conclusive results can be reached. (The Scriptures have many

examples of this). Empirical data is the information obtained through experience and

through the senses. Rationalism is reasoned belief based upon evidence. Revelation

involves a disclosure made by God either to all men through creation, or in special

revelation through Scripture and the witness of the Holy Spirit.

In the Scriptures there are examples of each of these ways of arriving at truth, and no

one way is put forward as the only legitimate method.

Savonarola‟s epistemology was based on experience plus reason. Following Aristotle, he

appealed to the Universe of Discourse, which is the logical process whereby ideas and

truth claims are matched against the evidence of the truth maker – the world or the

Universe. Truth is what corresponds to reality. If it is said that there is a tree in the

garden, the truth of the statement is either verified or denied by reality – either there is

a tree or there is not. Following this method a man could proceed by reason to discover

supernatural realities. With this conviction, Savonarola determined to provide an

apologetic which did not depend on „authorities‟, nor the Bible nor the Church – but on

reason. He believed that the Faith is reasonable and therefore can be presented in a

rational manner.


120 Gresham Machen, The Importance of Christian Scholarship in the Defence of the Gospel. A reprinted talk given in London in 1932 and reproduced in New Reformation Magazine, September 1996

121 Epistemology - a branch of philosophy that investigates the origin, nature, methods, and limits of human knowledge.


56

We will not appeal to any authority, no matter how learned they may be.

Instead, we shall proceed as if we had confidence in no one, and depend on

reason alone. By following such a method, we should satisfy everyone, apart from

the totally unreasonable.122

This knowledge can only be possible because God in his grace has granted free will to

men and placed them in a creation that reveals the creator.

Those who live in distant lands where Christianity is unknown have no

ground for excuse or complaint. Because all men are endowed with reason,

which leads to the knowledge of God, and God has also revealed123 himself

in the natural order of creation.124

This knowledge is not sufficient for salvation and fullness of faith. What is required is a

further act of grace as God‟s Spirit imparts light and insight and draws a person to

Christ. Those who seek to follow the light God gives in creation and conscience find God

will reveal the greater light through special revelation (as recorded in Scripture) –

through a preacher, a vision or dream, an angel, or through scripture.

If any one does use their reason and recognise that there must be a

creator, and turns to God for understanding, then Almighty God, the

Supreme Good, will not fail to reveal himself and His salvation. He will

enlighten him, either by inward inspiration, as He enlightened Job; or by

the ministry of angels, as He instructed Cornelius the Centurion125; or by

preaching, as He taught the Eunuch of Candace126 through the ministry of

Philip the Apostle.127

(This is supported in our day by reports of numbers of Muslims coming to faith after

having visions of Jesus speaking to them directly).

In appealing to reason alone he was meeting the humanists of his day, on their own


123 Romans 1:18-20 - The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known

about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the

world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

124 TOTC – Book 2 Ch 16

125 Acts 10:3-4 - One day at about three in the afternoon he had a vision. He distinctly saw an angel of God, who came to him and said, "Cornelius!" Cornelius stared at him in fear. "What is it, Lord?" he asked.

126 Acts 8:27-31 - (Philip) started out, and on his way he met an Ethiopian eunuch, an important official in charge of all the treasury of Candace, queen of the Ethiopians. This man had gone to Jerusalem to worship, and on his way home was sitting in his chariot reading the book of Isaiah the prophet. The Spirit told Philip, "Go to that chariot and stay near it." Then Philip ran up to the chariot and heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet. "Do you understand what you are reading?" Philip asked. "How can I," he said, "unless someone explains it to me?" So he invited Philip to

come up and sit with him.



57

ground. In the 15th Century, those who began to adopt the rationalism of the earlier

Greek philosophers were called Humanists. The university studies in these areas of arts

and philosophy became known as „humanities’. They celebrated knowledge that came

from human reason, and was not dependent on revelation from God. Those who wanted

to embrace Greek insights and maintain the place of revelation, were known as Christian

Humanists. Among them was Erasmus who provided the first reliable Greek text of the

New Testament. This renaissance of learning and the development of humanism is very

important as it still provides the basis for the philosophies and assumptions made by

societies in the 21st Century.

Many today define „knowledge’ or „proof„ as restricted to scientific investigation alone,

and that whatever „faith’ may be; It is not „scientific’. This attitude agrees with that of

philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970), who said: ‘Whatever knowledge is attainable,

must be attained by scientific methods; and what science cannot discover, mankind

cannot know’.128 Such a position is obviously false, because it disregards the limitations

of scientific enquiry. It would make witness testimony useless and close off the study of

most of history and other of the humanities.

The attitude that only scientific proof is valid has lead to the assumption that one cannot

prove the existence of God and to claim to believe in such a God is irrational. However

in recent years the realm of science has been tarnished in the eyes of the popular media.

And the media is very ready to show up the faults and failures of the once trusted

scientific „saviours’. The scientific community itself has acknowledged this to be the case

in some of its recent conferences. They have been found to be fallible and responsible

for great harm in areas such as BSE, CJD, nuclear safety, and other medical

interventions including breast implants.

The media has seen behind the scientific research, and recognised the hand of big

business, so that today the motive, means and outcomes are viewed with suspicion. This

is evident in the discussion on GM crops.

Bill Joy, one of the original designers of the Unix operating system and founder and chief

scientist of the software maker Sun Micro Systems, made a sombre warning about the

risks from new scientific developments. He said, ‘The 21st century technologies –

genetics, nanotechnology and robotics are so powerful that they can spawn whole new

classes of accidents and abuses. Most dangerously, for the first time, these accidents

and abuses are widely within the reach of individuals or small groups. They will not

require large facilities or rare raw materials. Knowledge alone will enable the use of

them’. He concludes,’ The only realistic alternative I see is relinquishment: to limit

development of the technologies that are too dangerous by limiting our pursuit of certain

kinds of knowledge.’ 129

This has had a cultural impact to the point where certainties are thought to be a luxury

no longer in stock. Our post-modern age feels that there is only a truth that each

individual must make for himself or herself. However there is very little given from which

this truth may be constructed.

Historically Søren Kierkegaard (1813-1855) laid the foundation for this form of

128 Bertrand Russell, Religion and Science: new edition with Introduction by Michael Ruse, Oxford University Press, 1997, page 243

129 The Times, London, 15 March 2000


58

existentialism. He believed human reason has reached its limit. Therefore, one must take

a ‘leap of faith’ beyond all categories of knowledge and reason, and let go of rationalism,

to make a faith commitment. This led to the idea that faith has nothing to do with

reason and is not based on knowledge. This conclusion was then justified by saying that

if faith is based on knowledge or certainty – then it is not faith.

Principles of Advocacy. But there is a more pragmatic means of handling evidence to

reach valid conclusions. It is the sophisticated tool of advocacy found in the law courts.

It also finds expression in the way most people live their everyday lives – because it

works.

Many lawyers have come to faith by using their legal skills and principles of advocacy to

sift the evidence, and have found in the resurrection of Jesus, the proof they need. Many

major judges and Law Lords have come to faith in this way. Lord Atkin, Lord Denning,

Lord Diplock, Lord Mackay, and Lord Hailsham are just a few. In his biography, Lord

Hailsham tells of his coming to conversion through legal processes. The most helpful

Alpha course, which has brought many people to Christ, has been composed and

presented by Christian barristers – using principles of advocacy.

The principles of advocacy used to weigh evidence, begin with a presumption of

innocence – that the evidence is not deceitful. Witness evidence is valid but its value

depends upon the quality of the witness not on the quantity of witnesses. Hearsay and

subjective impressions do not form acceptable evidence. (When the media presents

someone to tell us whether the resurrection took place or not - be they bishop,

theologian or crank - they are easily dismissed by simply asking - 'Were you there?'

Their evidence would not be admissible in a criminal court because it is hearsay.) The

evidence is based on facts. A jury is told only to deal with the facts and not with their

preconceptions. This is a most helpful discipline - to put preconceptions to one side. The

evidence needs a standard of proof. In criminal law, the standard is high. It is not just

51% or even 75%, but beyond reasonable doubt. The standard of proof is probability;

not possibility.

The key thing to note is that absolute certainty is a luxury hardly ever available

- in any walk of life, or any situation. It is very important because so many people

considering the claims of Jesus are looking for absolute certainty - and yet such a

standard is unreasonable. All personal decisions are based on probability, and not

certainty. Probability is the basis on which you live your life day by day.

What bridges the gap between probability and certainty is faith. Faith is not based on

possibilities but on probability. For example there is no certain evidence available for

making a personal commitment to a marriage, no one knows what the future may hold

in any relationship. Yet on the basis of a friendship and a mutual attraction people will

make a commitment, feeling that the probability is strong enough for a good marriage.

When we ask any person to make a commitment to Jesus Christ we are not asking them

to do anything more or less than they do in other areas of their life, which is to weigh

the evidence and to act on the basis of probability.

The principles, developed in advocacy over the centuries, are very close to the Universe

of Discourse methodology used by Savonarola.

The complexity of religious language


59

How can we talk about God? Some say that God talk is equivocal, - words applied to God

and man have totally different meanings. Other say univocal, - words applied to God and

man have identical meanings. Yet others say analogical - words applied to God and man

have similar meanings. This formed a discussion among Christians and philosophers and

Aquinas said, ‘Words must be used in the same way, but applied only in a similar way.

All limitations must be removed from a term before applying it to God’ But then the

secular philosophers began to assert that all God talk is nonsense.

AJ Ayer (1910 – 1989) was a twentieth century English Philosopher who taught that all

talk of God is meaningless. He put forward his Verification Principle - which stated that

only what can be known and experienced through the five physical senses is sense or

reason. He used the word „sense’ to mean reason, as well as „the physical experience of

reality’. So he declared God, and all talk of God, as meaningless, because God cannot be

proved or known by the five senses. The problem with this assertion is that the

Verification Principle itself, cannot be tested or affirmed by the five senses because it is a

philosophical concept and not a physical reality. It is therefore self-refuting.

Ayer‟s followers also assert that talk of an infinite God must be meaningless because our

words are finite. It is true that we use the same words to describe God as we use to

describe the natural world. But in one instance we use them in a finite sense and in the

other we use them in an infinite sense. This does not mean that God talk is nonsense,

but it does often have the quality of analogy.

Christian Philosopher, Colin Brown points out -

When we talk about God, we can do no other than talk in limited analogies. For

God is not an object of time and space. On the other hand, there is a genuine

point of comparison. The truth of Christianity emerges in the act of living it

out.130

Savonarola deals with this issue concisely and clearly. He is confident in talking of God

because God himself has provided the allegories, he has spoken in words in Scripture

and he has spoken through his Son - the Logos.

An allegory requires, first, that the words should narrate, not a fiction, but some

fact that has really occurred. Secondly, that this fact should prefigure some future

event. Thirdly, that the fact narrated should have had real significance at the time

it took place, and also as a forecast of some future occurrence. As no one but

God can compose such allegories, and as the Holy Scriptures are full of them, it is

clear that only God can be their author. The language and style of the Bible are

matchless, and none of our most learned and eloquent doctors have ever been

able to imitate it. This is a clear proof that the Holy Scriptures are a divine

creation and not a human work. 131

Faith, Reason and Revelation

130 Brown, Colin, Philosophy And The Christian Faith, Tyndale Press, London 1969, page 48

131 TOTC - Page 110


60

How do we come to faith? Do we discover the truth of the gospel and the character of

God through reason or revelation? Is the human mind capable of discovering truth or has

it become so corrupted at the fall that it is helpless in any spiritual enquiry? These

questions are of prime importance because they affect the way we approach Apologetics,

and even lead some to reject Apologetics as an invalid enterprise.

There are Scriptures that seem to support different views concerning the relationship of

faith and reason. Some seem to suggest that faith is based on revelation alone, others

suggest reason alone, and others suggest reason and revelation together are essential.

Revelation Only. Some preachers today are convinced that there is no room for reason

in the journey of faith. If God revealed himself in nature it would have been distorted by

fallen man, and nature is itself fallen. R C Sproul points out that though the Catholic and

Reformed positions were divided on the place of reason in revelation, they were united in

dismissing outright humanism, and in recognizing the corruption of man through sin.

Nowhere do we find more clear evidence of the impact of secularism on Christian

thinking than in the sphere of anthropology. Christian anthropology rests not

merely on the biblical concept of creation, but on the biblical concept of the fall.

Virtually every Christian denomination historically has some doctrine of original

sin in its creeds and confessions. These confessional statements do not all agree

on the scope or extent of original sin, but they all repudiate everything that would

be compatible with humanism.132

Such people believe there is no natural revelation and therefore no use for theistic

proofs. A key advocate of this position was Kierkegaard, who said that man is incapable

of discovering divine truth because God is wholly „other‟. God can only be known through

a „leap of blind faith’ against reason. What we believe is more important than objective

truth. What is required is not an argument of reason, but an act of the will. The

resurrection need not be objectively true – what matters is that you believe it

subjectively.

Karl Barth was a great 20th century theologian who furthered the idea that God is „wholly

other‟ and cannot be known by reason – to try to know God by reason is futile.

Reformers like Luther and Calvin wanted to stress that revelation is an act of grace and

self-disclosure on God‟s part and not an optional path for those who found reasoning

wearisome. As Alvin Plantinga says –

Reformed or Calvinist theologians have for most part taken a dim view of this

enterprise. A few reformed thinkers, B. B Warfield, for example, endorse the

theistic proofs, but for the most part the reformed attitude has ranged from tepid

endorsement, through indifference, to suspicion, hostility, and outright

accusations of blasphemy. And this stance is initially puzzling. It looks a little

like the attitude some Christians adopt toward faith healing; it can't be done, and

132 Sproul, R.C., Willing To Believe, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, 1997. Page 20


61

even if it could, it shouldn't be.133

Cornelius Van Til (1895 – 1987) was a pre-suppositionalist apologist who believed that

there was no common ground for reasoning with non-Christians. To come to faith the

unbeliever had to pre-suppose the existence of God.

Reason Only. Few would be so bold as to say that we can discover God and come to

faith just by the power of reason. Immanuel Kant (1724 – 1804) taught that we cannot

find God by pure speculation, but by practical moral reasoning it becomes clear that we

have to live as if God exists. God is required to make sense of our moral duty in this

life. Reason tells us there must be a moral lawgiver for us to have the moral law.

Earlier René Descartes (1596-1650) had tried to establish rationalism as the foundation

of all knowledge and that by reasoning one could establish the existence of God and

come to some measure of faith. Today those who wish to establish reason as the only

valid route to knowledge, are more likely to focus their arguments on destroying faith

and proving that belief in God and miracles is irrational.

Reason over Revelation. An early approach saw reason as over revelation. The

Alexandrian Fathers of the early Church (including Clement of Alexandria and Justin

Martyr) gave high regard to the Greek philosophers and their theories of knowledge.

They, and also modern higher critics, taught that reason sits in authority over the Bible,

because human reason is needed to evaluate the truth of the Bible. This approach is still

dominant today and has links to deism, which teaches that God created the world and

now stands back from creation and does not interact nor intervene.

Revelation over Reason. Tertullian (ca.160 – ca. 220 AD) rejected the supremacy of

reason, but argued that reason is required to respond to revelation, but not replace

revelation. His distrust of speculative reasoning is seen in his assertion that philosophers

are the fathers of all heresies and asked, „What indeed has Athens to do with

Jerusalem?’

Luther134 and Calvin saw revelation from God as the source of knowledge and the final

revelation to be in Jesus Christ and in his written word, the Bible. It was the ultimate

authority – not the Pope, nor philosophical reasonings.

Revelation and Reason. Augustine taught both reason and revelation were exercised

together, because each has its place. He said that ‘faith is understanding’s step and

understanding is faith’s reward’. One cannot believe in something without some

understanding of the ‘something’ in which trust is placed. We can prove God from reason

but sin blinds us to the fullness of truth, so faith needs revelation. We should reason to

133 James Sennett, editor, The Analytic Theist - An Alvin Plantinga Reader, Eerdmans Publishing, Cambridge, 1998, Page 139

134 Luther’s last sermon at Wittenburg has gone down in history as a classic invective against

reason, ‘the Devil’s whore’. Brown, Colin, Christianity And Western Thought, Volume One, Inter Varsity Press, Downers Grove, Illinois, 1990. Page 148


62

the Bible as God‟s revelation and then submit to that revelation.

Thomas Aquinas stressed the place of reason, even more than Augustine, though he was

an empiricist. He taught that God can be known from natural reason and that sin did not

completely destroy the ability to reason. In his Summa Theologiae he said, ‘The truth of

the Christian faith...surpasses the capacity of reason, nevertheless that truth that the

human reason is naturally endowed to know cannot be opposed to the truth of the

Christian faith.’ On this foundation he built his five ways to establish the existence of

God. He explained that some truths such at the doctrine of the Trinity could only be

proven by revelation. Aquinas also clarified the difference between belief in and belief

that. A Man can believe that God exists without believing in him.

We have to reason to understand and discover revelation so reason is prior. But all truth

comes from God who is prior to both in terms of human experience. We need reason

and revelation. No faith should be unreasonable – though reason should not a priori

reject revelation.

Savonarola’s response to these questions is again clear and perceptive. He answers

the question by going back to note the approach of Christ.

By rational science, we refer to logic, rhetoric and poetry; which aim to

teach us how to weave arguments together and through reasoning, bring

men to accept our ideas. Now, Christ instructed the Apostles in rational

science to such good effect that by their preaching they exercised more

influence in the world, than had previously been achieved by any human

power or learning.

True science is either practical and affects our life, or just speculation.

What Christ has taught is very practical and relates to our lives so

completely that Christians need no philosophy but His. Speculative science

may consider divine things, but it will never reach the breadth and certainty

as found in the teaching of Christ. Christ, the teacher, is above all human

wisdom, and beyond the wisdom of any heathen deities. Indeed, He is the very

Wisdom135 of the Eternal God.136

He also notes the place of special revelation -

Christians are established in their faith through the special revelation of God;

otherwise, their faith would not be a matter of trust, but opinion. But such

evidences confirm us in our Faith, and prove to our adversaries that our believing

is not mindless, but thoughtful and with intellectual rigour. 137

And he follows Aquinas in differentiating natural revelation and special revelation.

As it is possible to gain knowledge of invisible things by means of visible things,

we should understand, that there are also some aspects of the nature of God

135 1 Cor. 1:24 - Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.

136 TOTC – Pages 127-128



63

which we can know through human reason, and through natural things. Such

aspects are, the existence of God, His unity, His simplicity of being, and similar

truths, which philosophers have come to recognise. But there are other aspects of

God’s nature, which we cannot discover through human reason. - there are

secrets, which no created intellect can investigate. The divine things, which our

natural reason is not competent to discover by itself, are those that we believe by

faith. These include, the trinity and unity of God, the divinity and humanity of our

Saviour Jesus Christ, and other similar truths.

As natural revelation precedes the revelation of grace, we will begin with those

aspects of God, which we are competent to investigate by means of natural

evidence and deduction.138

His emphasis is not on man‟s capacity, but on God‟s generosity. He notes that all that we

have; the exercise of faith and the faculty of reason, are all gifts from God. 139 Anything

that man does is an exercising of the gifts God has given to him. And that when God

reveals himself to a man, that man needs to exercise reason to be able to understand

and respond to the ideas and context which God uses to communicate his love.

Our Faith cannot be proved by natural principles and causes. But, the past and

present events of Church history do afford arguments in support of our religion

that are so convincing that no logical mind can reject them. At the same time, no

one believes that faith itself depends upon these arguments, seeing that it is ‘the

gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast’. (Ephes. 2:8-9) 140

Savonarola was very clear of the fact that God has chosen to reveal himself to those who

are not sophisticated.

1 Cor. 3:19-20 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God's sight. As it is

written: ‘He catches the wise in their craftiness’; and again, ‘The Lord knows that

the thoughts of the wise are futile.’

1 Cor. 1:20-21 Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the

philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For

since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God

was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who

believe

There is a tendency to see God as confined to a person‟s human capacity for reasoning,

when he wants to make himself known. This is not the case. Corrie Ten Boom wrote a

lovely booklet called, „Common sense not needed‟141 in which she shared her experience

of working with brain damaged youngsters and finding real faith in them. I too have

spent years working with people of all ages with very severe learning difficulties and


139 Job 38:36 Who endowed the heart with wisdom or gave understanding to the mind?


141 Corrie Ten Boom, Common sense not needed, Christian Literature Crusade, London, 2003


64

have found in them a real sensitivity to the presence of God.

His emphasis on God‟s grace includes recognition of the fact that there is a veil over the

minds of those who read the Scriptures, until they come to Christ.

2 Cor. 3:13-16 We are not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face to keep

the Israelites from gazing at it while the radiance was fading away. But their

minds were made dull, for to this day the same veil remains when the old

covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken

away. Even to this day when Moses is read, a veil covers their hearts. But

whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away.

God’s Sovereignty, Free will and Molinism

Is Man free? Do we make free choices? Are we free to choose to follow Christ

and put our trust in Him? Do we have free will, and what is will? The will is

usually considered as one of two corresponding activities of the mind. It is the ability to

make choices and decisions based on the other activity; reason, which involves

evaluation of information and argument. Free will is the ability to make an informed and

rational choice without undue compulsion.

Burrhus Frederic Skinner (1904 – 1990) was a behavioural psychologist142 who taught

that there was no free will but man is controlled by genetics and environment. Our

actions affect what happens, but they are predetermined. On this basis he built a

therapy involving behavioural modification. In denying free will he also denied personal

accountability – which means that the theory does not work in the real world as it says a

criminal cannot be held guilty. He had an unchristian approach, but Christians can be

just as rigid in their view of free will.

Hyper Calvinism says God pre determines every event and man is not free. Robert

Charles Sproul, (b.1939) holds this position.

The antithesis to divine sovereignty is not human freedom, but human autonomy.

Autonomy represents a degree of freedom that is unlimited by any higher

authority or power. If God is sovereign, then man cannot be autonomous.

Conversely if man is autonomous, then God cannot be sovereign. 143

The problem here is the same as with Skinner - if man is not free, then he cannot be

held accountable and culpable. In Let Me See Thy Glory: A Study of the Attributes of

God,144 Robert Deffinbaugh pictures a God who can do whatever he chooses and choose

142 B. F. Skinner, Beyond freedom and dignity, Vintage Book, New York, 1972


144 Robert Deffinbaugh, Let Me See Thy Glory: A Study of the Attributes of God, Biblical

Studies Press, 2002


65

whatever he pleases (that is consistent with his holy character) – except, give free will

to his Children. This is to deny to God, something that even I have in my relationship

with my children. When they were young, I had power and sovereignty over them – but

to develop their character and to help them grow to maturity I granted them areas and

issues where they could choose. I freely chose to do this. And I also had to relate to

them in such ways as would allow them freedom to choose to love and trust me. I could

not coerce it.

Deffinbaugh ends up describing God as acting in ways that are inconsistent with his

character. He says that God chooses who will be saved and who will be cast into outer

darkness for eternity. He says God does this because he is free to choose – and there is

nothing worthy or distinguishing in humanity that is the basis for this choice. Nor is there

anything in the nature of God to determine the choice because God is impartial and just

in all his dealings. This leaves us with the only logical option that Deffinbaugh‟s God is

capricious and uncaring in the most profound matter of election and salvation. Such a

conclusion robs God of his love, justice, grace and wisdom.

Hyper Arminianism says God pre determined who should be saved, because he

foreknew what each man would freely choose to do. This view implies that man makes

all the decisions and the ultimate destiny of each individual and society would be a

decision made first by man and then ratified by God.

Open Theism is a further development of Hyper Arminianism. It challenges the

knowledge and character of God and suggests that he is open in his actions and only

motivated by love. God is omniscient in the sense that He knows all that is knowable,

but not even God can know the future. He can take incredibly wise guesses but He can

be fooled, can make wrong choices, can give false guidance, can be mistaken, and can

be resisted to the point of frustration. Because this is the only way that humans can be

truly free moral creatures. He has long term plans for the future but he has little idea of

how things will work out in the short term because he wants to leave himself free to

respond in love to whatever society or individuals will decide.

Genuine human freedom and the omniscience of God can be reconciled … only

when we acknowledge that there are some things that even an omniscient God

cannot know. 145

It reconstructs the events leading up to and surrounding Christ's death to portray both

Father and Son deciding only at the last minute that Jesus had to die.

Although Scripture attests that the incarnation was planned from the creation of

the world, this is not so with the cross. The path of the cross comes about only

through God's interaction with humans in history. Not until the agonizing prayer

in Gethsemane do ‘Father and Son both come to understand that there is no

other way.’ Even after this new discovery comes to God, the question still hangs

145 P.K. Helseth, "On Divine Ambivalence", Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 44.3, September 2001, page 494


66

over Jesus, ‘Will this gambit work?’ 146

Divine Mystery View

Norman Geisler (b.1932) and James I Packer (b.1926), hold the view that God

predetermines and man is free – but how is a mystery which will not be revealed in this

life. This is an intellectually consistent and humble attitude to adopt.

Geisler and Feinberg say

Human knowledge is probable and fallible in part because our knowledge is

partial. Sometimes we are wrong simply because we are ignorant of some

relevant fact or facts. Such cannot be the case with God because God knows

everything, both the actual and the possible (Ps. 139:1-6). Moreover, God's

knowledge is true. That is, it corresponds to reality.147

If there were greater humility, we might recognise that the revelation that God has given

has been provided to draw us into relationship. This purpose is fulfilled when we come

into a saving relationship with Christ and trust allows us to take the blessings of his

revelation, living with the mysteries, without forcing them to their logical conclusions.

As J. I. Packer says,

The root cause is the passion for systematic consistency, and a reluctance to

recognise the existence of mystery and to let God be wiser than men, and the

consequent subjecting of Scripture to the supposed demands of human logic.

People see that the Bible teaches man's responsibility for his actions; they do not

see (a man, indeed, cannot see) how this is consistent with the sovereign

lordship of God over those actions. They are not content to let the two truths live

side by side, as they do in the Scriptures, but to jump to the conclusion that, in

order to uphold the biblical truth of human responsibility, they are bound to reject

the equally biblical and equally true doctrine of Divine sovereignty, and to explain

away the great number of texts that teach it. The desire to over simplify the

Bible by cutting out the mysteries is natural to our perverse minds, and it is not

surprising that even good men should fall victim to it. Hence this persistent and

troublesome dispute. The irony of the situation, however, is that when we ask

how the two sides pray, it becomes apparent that those who profess to deny

God's sovereignty really believe in it just a strongly as those who affirm it.

How then do you pray? Do you ask God for your daily bread? Do you thank God

for your conversion? Do you pray for the conversion of others? If the answer is

'no', I can only say that I do not think you are yet born again. If the answer is

'yes' - well, that proves that, whatever side you may have taken in debates on

this question in the past, in your heart you believe in the sovereignty of God no

less firmly than anyone else. On our feet we may have arguments about it, but

146 John Sanders, The God Who Risks, a Theology of Providence, Inter Varsity Press, Downers

Grove, 1998. Pages 100 -101

147 Geisler and Feinberg, Introduction to Philosophy, Baker Books 2005, pages 129-130


67

on our knees all are agreed. 148

Medieval Soteriology.

A great deal of dispute centred around the issue of regeneration. Could a man choose to

repent and God respond in the grace of regeneration. Or as Luther taught, following

Augustine, man‟s will is in bondage and so regeneration is a free act of grace on the part

of God. Calvin spelled out the Christian doctrine of Predestination, more completely,

according to which a person's ultimate destiny, whether it be salvation or damnation, is

determined by God alone prior to, and apart from, any worth or merit on the person's

part. Some claimed that God only determines those to be saved; while others said that

he also determines those to be condemned. The latter teaching is called double

predestination.

The debate turned upon those who wanted to apply logic to the concept of God‟s

sovereignty, and those who wanted to be affirming of Man‟s moral responsibility. Yet

almost all agreed that salvation was through faith in Jesus Christ and his sacrificial

death. (There were some varied ideas as to how this salvation should be appropriated –

Augustine asserting that it was through baptism. „It must be noted that … in Augustine,

the grace of regeneration is effected by the settlement of baptism.)149

One way of applying deductive logic to the issue, was to debate the time line or order of

Salvation. Who does what and in what order – R C Sproul explains -

The classic issue between Augustinian theology and all forms of semi Pelagianism

focuses on one aspect of the order of salvation (ordo Salutis). What is the

relationship between regeneration and faith? Is regeneration a monegistic or

synergistic work? Must a person first exercise faith in order to be born again? Or

must rebirth occur before a person is able to exercise faith? Monoergistic

regeneration means that regeneration is accomplished by a single actor, God. It

means literally a ‘one working.’ Synergism, on the other hand, refers to work

that involves the action of two or more parties. The reformers taught not only

that regeneration does proceed faith but also that it must proceed faith. Faith is

regeneration's fruit, not its cause.150

For Luther the ‘irresistibility’ of grace is what makes it so gracious. Irresistible

grace denies the converted sinner any basis for boasting.151

Savonarola’s gospel and doctrine of free will.

148 James Packer, Evangelism And The Sovereignty Of God, Inter Varsity Fellowship, London, 1966, page 16





68

In the midst of a debate, which has divided and driven Christians to extremes of opinion,

Savonarola continues to speak with balance, insight and clarity.

First he establishes the reason why we need to be saved. It is because of original sin.

Man was created for fellowship with God, who is righteous and holy. Man had a

„righteousness‟ that was freely given to him, but was lost by an act of Adam‟s

disobedience.

Hence, we say that man was, at his creation, endowed with original

righteousness, with no sense of guilt or fear, and with the body and its five

senses subject to the soul. We further hold that if Adam had not deliberately

disobeyed God, this original righteousness would have been passed to all his

descendents.

But it is most reasonable, that, if man wilfully chose to turn away from God, he

should be deprived of original righteousness, and of the natural subjection of his

senses to reason, and of the immortality of his body. This was the just

punishment for his sin. This loss of original righteousness, which Adam incurred,

and which was transmitted by him to the whole human race, is what we mean by

original sin.152

The consequences of this sin are loss of fellowship with God, a corrupting of our human

nature and a coming judgment. There is a penalty. But God who is rich in mercy and

compassion has made provision for us. He has provided salvation as an act of pure

grace. Christ took the penalty and achieved our salvation by his death on the cross. Only

he could make a perfect sacrifice by laying down his holy life. His salvation includes the

promise of eternal life.

The following quotations are all from TOTC Book 3 Ch 10.

Man owed a debt for sin and God, becoming a man, was the only one with the

power to pay that debt, for the whole human race. In this fact is revealed the

appropriateness of His Incarnation, in which He has united the divine to the

human nature. In this mystery we recognise His power, His wisdom, and His

goodness as He has wholly given Himself to the human race, to embrace it, and

draw it to His love. But, above all His other attributes, His mercy is shown;

because it has led Him to be crucified out of love for us. His justice also is seen in

that He has Himself made satisfaction for original sin.

Therefore His mercy should create a secure hope in sinners who repent and His

justice should cause those who do not repent, to tremble. This is the reason why,

since Christ came into the world, so many men have been drawn from sin to

holiness of life.

When we consider these mercies, and the innumerable blessings Christ has

brought to humanity, we discover depths of wisdom that are unfathomable by the

intellect of man. (It is because this wisdom cannot be fathomed that it is

regarded as foolish by the world.) We also see how only Christ was eligible to

suffer for the guilt of mankind.



69

He came, not just to suffer for man, but also to be an example of righteous living.

So he chose a most bitter and disgraceful death to teach us that neither shame,

nor suffering, should force us to abandon the cause of truth and righteousness.

There is not enough time for me to enlarge upon the other reasons for our

Saviour choosing His terrible manner of death. I will only add, that those that

love Him, find His cross has been a source of sweetness and of light. Only those

who have experienced it will understand what I mean by this.

Christ died to atone for our sins, and especially for original sin, which was the

cause of the patriarchs being detained in Limbo. Therefore, it was right that

Christ should, immediately after His death (having bought their release from sin),

descend to Limbo and announce their freedom. 153

And it was also right that He should remain for three days in the tomb. Had He

stayed there longer, men would have lost all hope of His resurrection; and had He

not remained in the tomb so long, they would have denied the reality of His

death.

Man is free to respond to Christ‟s offer of salvation. This response is made with the help

of God who brings his enlightenment to us, draws us to himself and gives to us the gift

of faith.

This condition for salvation is a most reasonable one; for our ultimate

intimacy with God is to consist in the vision and knowledge of God, which

no one can attain, except by the supernatural gift of faith. St. Paul says

that without faith, ‘it is impossible to please God’ (Hebrews 11:6) 154

Faith is the gift of God, given to every believer for his salvation; therefore, my

children, do not share the errors of those who say to you, ‘If I saw some miracle,

or some man raised from the dead, then would I believe.’ Those men are

deceived, for faith comes not of our own strength, but is a supernatural gift - that

is, a light shed from above into the mind of man. And he who would receive this

light must prepare his inner man and abase himself before God.155

The Scripture teaches that one of the chief sources is faith in Christ and his love

for us. ‘This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all

who believe.’ Romans 3:22 ‘Without faith it is impossible to please God’ Hebrews

11:6 By faith expressed by love, we mean that in loving Christ crucified above all

things, we believe He is truly God and truly man, one with the Father and the

Holy Spirit, but a distinct person.156

Man has free will and so is accountable for accepting or rejecting Christ‟s offer of

153 1 Peter 3:18–19 - For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, through whom also he went and preached to the spirits in prison. The word prison (Greek – phulake) is a figurative word indicating a cage or holding place.


155 Villari - Book 1 Ch 10.



70

salvation.

If any one ask why the will is free, we reply unto them, Because it is will.

Those who will be saved are known to God and elected in the purposes of God.

But perhaps, you would then ask, ‘Why are some chosen and others cast out?’

Matters of faith, my son, must be studied by the light of faith, in the manner

prescribed to you by the Scriptures; further than this you may not go, lest you

should stumble. Who you are to answer back to God? Has not the potter power

over the clay, to knead from the same lump vessels of honour or vessels for base

uses? God shows mercy to the elect, justice to the wicked. But should you ask

why God has predestined this man rather than that, why John is chosen rather

than Peter? Then I shall tell you that such is the will of God, nor can any other

answer be given. The Pelagians declared it depended on our good deeds in this

life; for, according to those heretics, the principle of well-doing is in ourselves,

while its consummation and perfection comes from God. They sought to pass the

bounds assigned to us, and fell into heresy.

The Scriptures are very plain: they tell us, not in one place, but in many, that not

only the end of well-doing, but also its beginning, comes to us from God; even as

in all our good works it is God who works through us. ‘It is therefore untrue that

the grace of God is obtained by pre-existing works and merits, that through them

we are predestined to everlasting life, as though works and merits were the cause

of predestination. It is all the contrary, for works and merit are the effect of

predestination, and the Divine will the cause of predestination, as we have before

said.

We do not receive grace by partaking of sacraments.

In the same way, the sacraments are not the source of grace. Grace does not

come from either the sacrament’s own innate virtue, nor by power acquired from

the actions of Christ. Grace comes from God alone.157

There is no salvation apart from faith in Christ

From what has just been said, it is evident, that Christianity is the only true

religion. And if this is the case, then there is no salvation except through faith in

Christ, and all, except Christians, must be living in error.158

The motivation behind salvation is the love of God.

Tell me, O Peter, tell me, O Magdalen, why are you in Paradise? You sinned even

as we sin. You, Peter, who had witnessed the Son of God, had conversed with

Him, heard Him preach, beheld His miracles, and, alone, with two other disciples,

had beheld His transfiguration on Mount Tabor, hearkened unto His paternal




71

voice, and who, despite all this, at the word of a base woman did deny Him

thrice, yet you were restored to grace, and made the head of the Church, and do

now enjoy heavenly bliss; how have you gained these blessings? Do not say that

by your own merits you have attained salvation, but by the goodness of God, who

did bestow so many blessings on you, and vouchsafed to you in this life so much

light and grace. And you, Magdalen, later, you were so favoured by the Saviour

as to be the first to behold Him risen from the dead, and were made an apostle

unto the Apostles. This grace, these gifts, were not given to you because you

deserved them, O Mary! but because God loved you and willed your salvation.159

Savonarola taught that in our freedom of will we should choose to live in ways pleasing

to the Lord, as that would be the best way to be receptive to the working of the Holy

Spirit. Not only is it in our power, but it is also our duty, to prepare ourselves for the

reception of this gift of faith and grace, which is never withheld from those who do their

utmost to obtain it. According to him, there are three things required to prepare and

dispose us for its reception, - determined belief, prayer, and good works.

Such ideas are controversial for those who would want to say that he and the Church of

his day taught that good works attract the mercy of God and are our part in preparing

for our salvation. Careful reading of his teaching shows that he did not believe such a

notion but he did believe that „faith without works is dead‟160, as the Apostle James says.

He also thought that it was more fitting for a person to be like Lydia than Saul of Tarsus

in the period before conversion. In Acts we read of both of them. One gave time to

prayer and worship161 while the other was breathing out threats and violence against

God‟s people.162

Providence works with men in such a way, as to leave them the freedom of their

will. As they do co-operate with the impulse of providence, they will be acting

appropriately to attain to their desired end.163

The other controversy that has been present in the Church for thousands of years

concerns free will. Can a man resist God if he is predestined to salvation? Can a man

choose to follow Christ, or is the will bound and only able to respond when God creates

the response?

Savonarola believed that if man did not have free will he would be like an animal living

by instinct. If this were the case he would not be in the image of God, because God has

free will.

Another argument for the immortality of the soul lies in the fact that man, like

other animals, has the power of autonomous action. Now, as the other animals

159 TOTC – Book 4 Ch 1. Latin Edition, translated by Travers Hill

160 James 2:26 As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.

161 Acts 16:14 One of those listening was a woman named Lydia, a dealer in purple cloth from the city of Thyatira, who was a worshipper of God. The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul's message.

162 Acts 9:1 Meanwhile, Saul was still breathing out murderous threats against the Lord's

disciples.



72

move by means of instinct and mind, so it follows that it must also be his

intelligent mind, which enables man to move. We know that man is governed by

will and understanding. The essence of man, therefore, must be an intelligent

soul, capable of volition.164

Molinism

Savonarola developed a concept of the way God draws us to himself through his

providence and how he is able to respond to our free choices. Luis de Molina, a Spanish

Jesuit priest, would take these ideas up fifty years later and they would become what is

now known as Molinism. As noted, it is a theory promoted today by William Lane Craig

and Alvin Carl Plantinga.

This theory says God knows what man would freely choose in every possible world, and

predetermines our choices by controlling our circumstances, and man freely chooses his

actions. This allows God to speak to us and make the gospel meaningful to us so that we

are free to receive it, or reject it. This fits with the word of Jesus - John 6:44 ‘No-one

can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him’. Also with the words of St

Paul, as he describes how God uses circumstances. Romans 8:28 And we know that in all

things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to

his purpose.

Savonarola pre-dated Molina as he described the grace of God working with man, in

providence. For him providence was the explanation.

We must remember that God moves the will of man in two ways. Sometimes by

showing him something good, in order to arouse a love for it within him.

Sometimes by applying His power to the will of man, in order to influence him to

an act of love or of desire. This is just like a shepherd who may attract a sheep

by showing it food; or he may use his hand to draw it along.

Now, people can influence each other in the first of these two ways, but no man

can act on the will of another in the second way. Because the will comes directly

from God, it is directly subject to Him, and He alone can move it to will, or not to

will. Even though the will is completely in God's power, He never acts upon it in

such a way as to deprive man of his liberty. He always leaves him his free-will,

because God works with all things according to their nature and ability. 165

All things, both natural and artificial, are ordered for this purpose. Providence

moves all men toward this end as we seek to conform to the moral virtues.

However, providence works with men in such a way, as to leave them the

freedom of their will. As they do co-operate with the impulse of providence, they

will be acting appropriately to attain to their desired end.166





73

If it never is the will of the Father that anyone should perish167, and that he actively

works providentially in the life of each person, then it would require a free but arrogant

choice to resist God‟s grace. This is sometimes described as becoming gospel „hardened‟.

We should note that the hardening of someone‟s heart and mind is attributed to God, but

is caused by an act of grace on his part, being met by a resistant and evil response.

Savonarola explains that the same grace produces opposite results.

We must now investigate the cause of this phenomenon. Philosophy recognises

that contrary effects can spring from the same cause, because of the different

nature of the matter affected. For example, we see how the rays of the sun

harden the earth, and melt ice, cause a well-planted tree to bear flower and fruit,

and wither another whose roots are not deeply grounded. 168

Faith does not depend upon Apologetic proofs, nor is it created by such

Proofs

Faith should be the volitional commitment of an informed intellect. But again, Christians

have pushed to extreme positions in arguing about what is involved. Some teach that the

gospel evidence is so strong that the faith we exercise is an acceptance of truth and

commitment to Christ. Others make the assumption that God is most pleased when we

have simple faith and believe things that appear impossible and then if we believe hard

enough – as a reward for such faith – God makes the impossible real. This applies in the

matter of salvation, but also in the area of healing. When healing has not come it has led

to both disappointment with God for not keeping his word and also guilt on the part of

the believer for not having believed hard enough.

In reality we cannot come to know God on the basis of arguments alone and there is an

element of commitment that is needed to experience ourselves being drawn to Christ, by

the Father. Colin Brown and James Boice make this clear in their observations

Jesus did not hand out his message on the plate. To find out its truths demands

a personal commitment. It is to those who follow him that he gives

understanding. It is through following him that men encounter the Father.

Objective proof seems to have been ruled out. God's existence is not a matter of

logical or scientific demonstration but of inner awareness. The central truths of

the Christian Gospel are reached only by personal commitment.169

Nicodemas came to see a young rabbi, Jesus of Nazareth. With the exception of

the word 'rabbi', which was merely a polite form of address, the first words were

a claim to considerable knowledge. Nicodemas said, ‘we know.’ then he began

to rehearse things he knew of , or thought he knew, and with which he wanted to

begin the discussion 1. That Jesus was continuing to do many miracles; 2. That

these miracles were intended to authenticate him as a teacher sent from God;

and that therefore, 3. Jesus was one to whom he should listen. Unfortunately for

167 2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.


169 Brown, Colin, Philosophy And The Christian Faith, Tyndale Press, London 1969, page 47


74

Nicodemas, Jesus replied that such an approach to knowledge was wrong and

that Nicodemas could therefore know nothing until he had first experienced an

inward, spiritual transformation. ‘You must be born anew,’ Jesus told him. John

chapter 3:7 170

Savonarola is clear that faith is a gift of grace. If everything were by reason and proof

then all would be self-evident and there would be no need for faith.

At the same time, no one believes that faith itself depends upon these

arguments, seeing that it is ‘the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can

boast’. (Ephes. 2:8-9)171

But as noted earlier, he sees the Scriptural imperative to engage in Apologetics and the

purpose of Apologetics, mean that reasoning and defending the Gospel truths is vital. For

him fideism, would never have been an option. The central message of his preaching

was the need to respond to the gospel of Christ.

If only I might persuade you to turn away from earthly things, and follow the

things eternal! May God grant this grace to me and to you. But this is a gift from

God. ‘None may come unto me’, says the Lord, ‘unless the Father brings him’. I

cannot give you that inward illumination, I can only sound in your ears; but what

use is that if your intellect is not enlightened, nor your heart warmed? And how

may this be done, save by the word of God? Labour, then, to comprehend His

word, and I will strive to do the work of the Apostles, making the Holy Scriptures

known to you; and your part is to be doers, and not only hearers of the word of

God. 172

His gospel imperative and Fideism

Fideism is the theory that one must simply believe and you cannot use reason to

discover that God exists. Not only is there no evidence or argument that can create faith

– it is the very opposite of faith to look for evidence. Fideism predates, but was taught

by Kierkegaard. It holds that objective truth and faith do not meet. What you feel

subjectively as truth – is truth. Those who hold this do not defend the Faith – because

faith is a leap in the dark.

Savonarola would counter all this by his insistence that we are commanded to use

reason in our relationship with God. We are called to honour him by using the God given

faculty of our mind.

Isaiah 1:18 ‘Come now, let us reason together,’ says the LORD.

Matthew 22:37 Jesus replied: ‘ 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and

with all your soul and with all your mind.'

170 James Montgomery Boice, Foundations Of The Christian Faith, Inter Varsity Press, Leicester, 1981, page 19




75

To engage in the Apologetic Task has Apostolic authority and

commission.

Savonarola quotes Scripture to establish that engaging in Apologetics is commended and

commanded by Apostolic authority. He quotes 1 Peter 3:15

There are those who are enlightened by God, and have embraced the Faith,

without proofs. They then go on to strengthen their own belief and that of

others, by investigating the grounds of their faith. These deserve praise because

they obey the instruction of St. Peter ‘in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord.

Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the

reason for the hope that you have’.173

In this text, St Peter calls upon all Christians to be ready to give an answer, Greek term

apologia, which implies informal conversation as well as a formal testimony in a court.

The answer is to be an exposition of our reason, which is the Greek word logos which

implies a thought out rational explanation. The Apostle expects every Christian to have

some ability in this activity and not for the task to be confined to a group of experts.

This same Apostolic instruction is given by St Paul

Col. 4:5-6 Be wise in the way you act towards outsiders; make the most of every

opportunity. Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so

that you may know how to answer everyone.

Reason alone will be the authority appealed to – not Church, Pope or

Bible.

In Savonarola‟s day, as in our own time, there was a strong tendency to appeal to

human authorities. This technique has been used by Christians, but particularly by the

renaissance philosophers. The method was to quote some scholar or celebrity and to

suggest that it would be sensible to line one‟s thinking and behaviour with theirs. This is

more than regarding someone as an example – it is submitting one's own judgement to

another person‟s greater authority. The authority could be a person or institute of great

learning or it could be a religious or political power to which one owes obedience.

Savonarola resists such authorities and challenges his readers to exercise their own

judgment. As part of this compact with the reader, he is prepared to argue his

Apologetic without appeal to authorities that could be disputed or thought unconvincing.

As noted earlier, he believed that the Faith is reasonable and therefore can be presented

in a rational manner.

In this book we intend to be guided by reason alone. We will not appeal to any

authority, no matter how learned they may be. Instead, we shall proceed as if we

had confidence in no one, and depend on reason alone. By following such a



76

method, we should satisfy everyone, apart from the totally unreasonable.174

The argument will be in the language and thought of the hearers.

The language and terms used are familiar to the readers and will enable effective

communication, even with the least educated. He said he would -

Expose the irrationality of non-believers’ arguments so that simple and

uneducated people are released from the deception played on them. 175

The argument will begin with some agreed basic suppositions.

If an argument is to be conducted satisfactorily, the disputants must agree with

each other about some point. Because, if they disagree on every point, there will

be no possibility of discussion. They may, or may not, of course, think alike on

matters of minor importance. But they must agree about certain principles, which

are so generally accepted that no one denies them. We must, therefore, take up

our position on certain acknowledged principles. We cannot argue with one who

denies them; because he who refuses to accept these first principles is unreason-

able. 176

12 His Apologetic deals with the loss of nerve in current Apologetics, by

providing the clearest understanding of the Apologetic task, the

reasons for undertaking that task, the method of approaching that

task and the place of that task within the grace of God.

In the western world of the 19th Century, there was a great emphasis on reason as the

key to all areas of life. The idealism of philosophers like Georg Hegel (1770 – 1831) and

the belief in progress became dominant ideas. This was the beginning of the American

Dream; that the lower orders can progress to wealth and power. This mood fitted well

with Charles Darwin's (1809 – 1882) „Origins of the Species‟ published in 1859. Darwin

saw man as resulting from an evolved progress based on the survival of the fittest. With

this came belief in the goodness and progress of the individual. Andrew Carnegie

captured the mood -

To kill a man will be considered as disgusting as we in this day consider it

disgusting to eat one.177




177 Andrew Carnegie, 1900, Leadership, Vol. 5, no. 1.


77

Protestant Theology tried to echo the spirit of the day. The Bible was seen as complex

and textually unreliable. If there was a God then he was often seen in deistic terms and

creation was attributed to evolution. Miracles were dismissed as irrational. Liberalism, or

Modernism, as a major theology, proclaimed that humanity was evolving and Jesus was

to be seen as the ideal man. He modelled for us what we can attain if we imitate his

morality. Sin was seen as primitive and we should have grown out of that kind of

superstition. The gospel became a social gospel, with the aim of cleaning up society. It

also had its personal reference within the feelings of the individual with key people like

Schleiermacher proclaiming that religion was a feeling of absolute dependence and does

not need an objective source, but is made up of the subjective feeling of dependence on

nature or society in its upward evolution.

This movement also gave the possibility of an evolution within organised religions too.

Ecumenism began as a movement, with Jesus seen as the ideal man and religion as

dependence focussed within a new ideal of one Church. Councils of Churches began to

form and those with the least authoritative theology were able to join quickly.

In the Roman Catholic Church, Alfred Loisy (1857-1940), a theologian, tried to

introduce the same ideas of modernist theology, but the Pope stood firm and he was

excommunicated.

By the time he was excommunicated for these anti scriptural views, by a Pope

considerably more orthodox than certain recent incumbents of the office, he had

admitted privately that he had even lost his belief in God and could no longer

believe in any spiritual reality whatever.178

The Fundamentals. The response of Conservative and Reformed theologians to the rise

of Modernist theology was to produce The Fundamentals. This was a series of scholarly

books (similar in style to the Reader's Digest) which were widely distributed to Christian

leaders in the English-speaking world. They were serious and well argued theologies.

But it quickly changed after 1925 and the Scopes Trial where a teacher, John Scopes,

was prosecuted for teaching evolutionary theory. The prosecution was like a circus and

the case polarised the United States into those who were modern and factually rational

and those who were fundamentalists and appeared irrational. And so began sociological

fundamentalism.

It became easier to deny the ill thought-out ideas of these people who were now

described as Fundamentalists. While they, saw themselves as persecuted and formed a

lifestyle to protect themselves from an evil society. They used their behaviour to define

themselves and they saw in the teaching of the New Testament, and particularly the

letters to the Corinthians, a doctrine of „separation’. This entailed a separation from the

world, society, alcohol, tobacco, and ecumenism. They formed their own Bible colleges

and before having their own radio stations, had been against the radio as a demonic

medium. They were strict in their observations of the Sabbath and formed their own

vocabulary. Some Like the Christian Brethren became very insular with an oversight of

men organising and pastoring their community.

They also had a strong stress of eschatology. This is seen in the writings and work in

178 John Warwick Montgomery, God's Inerrant Word. Trinity Press, Newburgh 1974, Page 27.


78

John Nelson Darby (1800–1882) and also the Seventh-Day Adventists and the

Dispensationalism of the Scofield Bible.179 They felt there was no answer to modernism,

so they wanted to hold on to what they had, until the Lord returned.

Theologically the reasoning and argument put forward by these groups had become poor

and counter productive. They had kept the faith but withdrawn from the theological

world so that the Modernists were able to take all the places of influence - because the

Reformed Christians had moved out.

The devastation of World War One clearly showed that society was not getting better.

Philosophy and theology had to be re-thought. From the tragedy grew up a Neo-

orthodoxy. Theologians such as Karl Barth (1886-1968) and Emil Brunner (1889 –1966)

were quick to reject modernism. Barth tried to get back to classic Christianity. He saw

God as transcendent and not locked into his creation. Humanity was seen as depraved

and needing to be saved, the tragedy of war had proved it. There was a real need of a

saviour and Christ was the saviour provided. The Bible, he saw as a genuine revelation,

and man needs a personal conversion. However the idea of a fall in moral standing as

described in Genesis was declared a myth and did not occur. Christ is the saviour but it

is impossible to prove historically that his miracles and resurrection occurred because

the New Testament is not reliable. These things may have had a reality but not in the

ordinary history as open to investigation so the resurrection must be accepted by faith.

The real problem was arrogance and a rejection of the Bible as the inspired word of God.

The problem was not the convincing nature of liberal arguments – they are not

convincing. G K Chesterton recognised this in his classic Orthodoxy:

The religious liberal, having no firm anchor in eternity, built his Worldview on the

shifting sands of the Zietgeist; his theology is inherently unstable and he knows

it. He therefore resents, vainly tries to ignore, and subject to ridicule and calumny

the Orthodox believer, who claims to have an unchanging and certain message.180

As did G E Ladd

It must be recognised that modern Biblical criticism was not the product of a

believing scholarship concerned with a better understanding of the Bible as the

Word of God in its historical setting, but of a scholarship which rejected the

Bible’s claim to be the supernaturally inspired Word of God.181

And so John Warwick Montgomery concludes -

Conceivably, though the notion hardly accords with the arrogance of modernity,

Augustine, Aquinas, Michelangelo, Luther, Calvin, Pascal, Bach, Kepler, Wesley,

and a host of others too numerous to mention may have had better reason to

hold to scriptural authority than twentieth century man has to reject it. 182

179 Published in 1909 and based on the text of the Authorised Version, with very extensive notes in the text, by Cyrus I Schofield.

180 Quoted in The Suicide of Christian Theology, p 183. John Warwick Montgomery, Trinity Press, Newburgh 1996

181 The New Testament and Criticism, page 308, G E Ladd. Grand Rapid 1960

182 John Warwick Montgomery, God's inerrant word, Lessons from Luther on the Inerrancy of


79

In the 1950's Paul Tillich (1886–1965) began to have an increasing influence. He

believed we could have Christian faith even if there were no Christ or a Christ so remote

as to be unknown. His affirmation was that God is „being‟ itself, not „a being‟ but the

„ground of being‟. The Bible, Christ and the Church, can never be perfect but only

imperfect symbols of the „ultimate ground of being‟.

In the 1960's this had grown into Secular theology with writers such as John A. T.

Robinson (1919–1983), the Bishop of Woolwich. He had taken the insights of Situational

Ethics and rejected the esoteric nature of Existentialism. He wanted a way to make

theology practical. Many of the ideas were attributed to Dietrich Bonhoeffer (1906-

1945). Bonhoeffer had been both an existentialist and a Barthian theologian, who died

as a martyr and was therefore revered. He had tried to be practical in his theology by

asking- „Who is Christ for us today?’ He found Christ to be located in the Church and in

the „faith community‟ but not in Scriptures. He is to be found in action as in existential

decision-making and in „essence‟ as in Tillich's „ground of being‟. While in a concentration

camp, he located Christ in the secular society and talked about religionless Christianity.

Christ is hidden in the secular and we have to find him there. Christ does not control but

inhabits the situation.

The Secular theologians took up this idea in writings such as „Honest to God’ 183and

declared that God is not „up there‟, he is the „ground of being‟. Christ was seen as „the

man for others‟. Jesus was a model for us and not a saviour, as sin is not a reality. This

secular theology is lived out in Situational Ethics, where we are encouraged to act

„lovingly’ in every situation, regardless of any principles.

Bishop James Pike (1913-1969) was the counter to Robinson in the United States.

When pushed as to his authority after rejecting God, the Bible, the Church and

sacraments, he concluded that he must be the final authority in his own world and had in

effect become his own god.

This period had seen the rise of optimism again within popular culture. Humans had

made particular scientific and technological breakthroughs - a man had stood on the

Moon. So the optimism of Situational Ethics was brought into the corporate life of the

Church where it was declared that the Church should find the most loving thing to do,

and in so doing reach maturity of faith.

The Secular Theology led to a bombshell which featured on the cover of Time magazine.

It marked a logical conclusion to all that had gone before, and declared, „God is dead’. 184 Some Like Harvey Cox (b.1929), used the expression ‘God is dead’, as a metaphor

and form of poetry. He was saying that people are dead to God and so God is dead to

people. But others such as William Hamilton (b.1924) and Paul van Buren (1924-1998)

wanted to state that God had literally died.

Hamilton was a Biblical scholar who believed he could prove the death of God. He stated

that in the 19th century we saw Jesus‟ belief in demonology was wrong but we kept our

faith in Jesus. Later we discovered Jesus‟ belief in sin, the fall and creation, was false

Holy Writ,. Newburgh 1974, page 64

183 J A T Robinson, Honest to God, SCM Press, London 1963

184 "God Is Dead" We must recognize that the death of God is a historical event: God has died in our time, in our history, in our existence. TIME magazine, 8 April 1966


80

and he was a child of his own time. But we still kept with Jesus. Now we had discovered

that Jesus‟ eschatology was a myth he picked up from his day, and he was wrong. But

we still kept with Jesus. Now Hamilton looked at Jesus‟ belief about God and declared

that he was wrong, and we should be more grown-up in our approach and throw out the

mythical ideas of Jesus. God has gone and man had become central.

Barth had declared that God was transcendent and pushed him away until later theology

lost him all together. Existentialism said you will find God in your own experience. This

was subjective and had no objective reality. In existentialism God was allowed to die.

The poorer people of the world have been given a theology of their culture through

writers like Leonard Boff (b.1938). This Liberation Theology deals with the actual

situation. The Church has been seen as linked with the rich and Christians should be

linked with the poor. Wealth is evil. Salvation is total well-being for all. The Church is a

sacrament of liberation and there is no difference between the sacred and the secular

and no line between the believer and non- believer. There is no sin and no redemption.

This is the exact opposite of Prosperity Theology which has been prominent in the

United States where Christians have seen prosperity as a sign of God's blessing on those

who are obedient and faithful to him. All things which are needed for life and fulfilment

are available to those who are centred in the blessing of God.

Today we have difficulty communicating between Christians because we have different

assumptions about authority and the place of Scripture. These assumptions have been

further complicated by the claims and assumptions of the Charismatic movement. There

is still a desire for authority, but so often it is sought in experience. The study of

Scripture is not so strongly encouraged as a ‘Simple Faith’, even verging on the anti

intellectual, is assumed to be what God honours.

Many of the movements that have followed have seemed to be reactions of a frustrated

church seeking to deal with what C S Lewis calls „undulations‟ 185 - the fact that life is not

in a steady state but has peaks and troughs, the weariness of spiritual warfare and the

hard slog of following Christ in an alien world.

Loss of Nerve. In the midst of this milieu of the 20th Century there was a great loss of

nerve in defending the Faith. To seek to convert another person to the Christian faith

was seen as a most evil thing to do. Some of those who did engage in Apologetics in the

USA were strident and sometimes arrogant, which further stirred the reaction.

Professor Thomas Guarino found this attitude in the Catholic as well as the Protestant

community,

One reason Apologetics went into eclipse, of course, is that the discipline

smacked of arrogant, intolerant, and triumphal attitudes, capital sins in modern

intellectual life. For many, the very term ‘Apologetics’ brings to mind the

desiccated and jejune rationalism that, they imagine, Vatican II was striving to

overcome. 186

185 CS Lewis, Screwtape Letters. Collins Fontana, London,1963. Page 44

186 Thomas Guarino, Apologetics, Unapologetically. Magazine: First Things: A Monthly

Journal of Religion and Public Life. Issue: 161. March 2006. Page 53. Copyright 2006, Institute


81

John Stackhouse responded to this situation with his work, Humble Apologetics, and

gives the following half humorous definitions –

‘Apologetics’ is ‘telling someone why you're sorry you are a Christian.’ So the

word can sound, linked as it is with our everyday word ‘apologize.’ And clearly

Apologetics is a positive enterprise, not a regretful one! There is more than a

little irony in another whimsical definition: ‘Apologetics’ is ‘making someone sorry

he asked why you are a Christian!’ 187

He too joins with many who have found Apologetics a dangerous enterprise that has

caused people to be fearful or lose their nerve.

Apologetics is dangerous work. In an era in which voices from several sides

remind us of how problematic are human claims to knowledge; in a culture that

increasingly resists and resents anyone who seeks the conversion of another; and

in an activity whose stereotype is of rationalistic conceit and intellectual bullying -

what sensible, sensitive person would want to engage in Apologetics? 188

Cardinal Avery Dulles opens his imposing History of Apologetics189 by observing that

Today the term Apologetics carries unpleasant connotations. The apologist is

regarded as an aggressive, opportunistic person who tries, by fair means or foul,

to argue people into joining the Church. Numerous charges are laid at the door of

Apologetics: its neglect of grace, of prayer, and of the life-giving power of the

word of God; its tendency to oversimplify and syllogize the approach to faith; its

dilution of the scandal of the Christian message; and its implied presupposition

that God's word should be judged by the norm of fallible, not to say fallen, human

reason.

Earlier in the century C. S. Lewis concluded an address to fellow apologists -

I have found that nothing is more dangerous to one's own faith than the work of

an apologist. No doctrine of that Faith seems to me so spectral, so unreal as one

that I have just successfully defended in a public debate. For a moment, you see,

it has seemed to rest on oneself: as a result, when you go away from that

debate, it seems no stronger than that weak pillar. That is why we apologists take

our lives in our hands and can be saved only by falling back continually from the

web of our own arguments, as from our intellectual counters, into the Reality -

from Christian Apologetics into Christ Himself. That also is why we need one

another's continual help - oremus pro invicem [Let us pray for each other]. 190

of Religion and Public Life.

187 John G. Stackhouse, Humble Apologetics: Defending the Faith Today, Oxford University Press. New York. 2002. Page 227

188 ibid

189 Avery Dulles, A History of Apologetics, Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 2005

190 C. S. Lewis, “Christian Apologetics,” in C. S. Lewis, God in the Dock: Essays on Theology


82

For the Christian this created problems. How could the existence of God be proved and

what sort of God did such proofs disclose? One response was fideism, which said that our

faith in God was real, but could not be proved and if it could be, it would not be faith.

Others relied on subjective experience and such a response is illustrated in the hymn of

Alfred H. Ackley, „I serve a risen Saviour‟. It states,

I know that he is living, whatever men may say …

You ask me how I know He lives. He lives within my heart.

The seeds of this crisis in Apologetics were not just the liberal and secular attacks on the

Faith, but also the shift in Evangelical Theology where there was an abandoning of the

strong emphasis on factual evidences for Christianity that had characterized the work of

BB Warfield, Charles Hodge and Gresham Machen. It was replaced by a very strong

emphasis on Presuppositional Apologetics, which denies the value of evidence.

Harriet Harris records how –

Shortly before his death Dr. Machen had been shocked to learn that this change

had occurred, not only because it would undercut a large part of the work to

which his life had been devoted, but also because he knew that such an anti-

intellectual attitude would greatly diminish the effectiveness of the graduates in

Christian thinking and evangelism. 191

This was my experience when I studied the curriculum of the London University

Department of Theology in the 1960‟s we were taught that all the Theistic Proofs of

Aquinas should be learned and understood – but we should recognise that none of them

stood up to reason. H D Lewis, Professor of the History and Philosophy of Religion in the

University of London, laid down the ground rules -

The benefit we derive from the study of the traditional arguments is thus two-

fold; we appreciate in the first instance how they fail as arguments, and in the

second place we acquire an insight into the movement of thought which lies

behind them and makes them plausible.192

The conclusion was that there is a gap between certainty and uncertainty about God.

Examining each of the theistic proofs available, in isolation, showed each was faulty and

broken. They were like a heap of broken planks and one cannot build a bridge to span a

gap with broken planks. Therefore we should be very uncertain about God and truth and

instead celebrate the inspiration of the stories of Jesus and emphasise the spirituality of

men and women.

I remember as a student in the foremost Evangelical college in the UK, discovering the

books on Apologetics occupied only a small space on one shelf in the College Library.

There was no formal teaching of Apologetics and no one told me these most helpful

and Ethics, ed. Walter Hooper, Erdmans, Grand Rapids, 1970, Page 103.

191 Harriet A. Harris, Fundamentalism and Evangelicals. Clarendon Press. Oxford. 1998. Page

254

192 H. D. Lewis, Our Experience of God: Allen & Unwin. London. 1959. Page 42.


83

books were there!

In the 1970‟s I studied theology for two years at Durham University and the nearest we

got to Apologetics was the insistence that every student read ‘Mere Christianity’ by CS

Lewis, before beginning any other studies.

About the only other book that the average UK Christian would have come across to help

them in defending their faith was „Who moved the Stone?‟ 193 which dealt with evidence

for the resurrection. Having checked with several theological colleges I discover that

Apologetics today is still not regarded as essential and generally is not taught.

Savonarola gives courage to the nervous and challenges us by his own life laid down.

But particularly he enables us to find confidence by providing the clearest understanding

of the Apologetic task, the reasons for undertaking that task, the method of approaching

that task and the place of that task within the grace of God.

13 His Apologetic deals with the weaknesses and blunders in current

Apologetics

Note that I do not use the word „blunder’ in a pejorative sense, but simply to indicate a

course of action or an approach to a problem that is undertaken without sufficient

thought and which results in an outcome that might well be good, but is less than best.

Having given a brief account of the history behind the loss of nerve in Apologetics, we

must now consider the state of Apologetics in the 21st Century. As we consider the

weaknesses and the blunders, we should note how Savonarola‟s approach - bringing all

the evidences together as a unity - avoids the blunders and overcomes the weaknesses.

The blunder of making Apologetics a professional occupation rather than every

believer’s responsibility.

Because Apologetics has not been taught to the believers the loss of nerve has filtered

down from the academic world to the church fellowship. Those who do engage in

lecturing and writing in defence of the faith are regarded as professionals in a

professional world, where amateurs venture at some risk. This has resulted in the sad

situation where most believers are fully aware of the attacks on the Faith and know of

Richard Dawkins, but few know of any refutation of his arrogant polemics.

The New Testament clearly sees the apologetic task of providing an „answer‟ was the

responsibility of each believer. Col. 4:6 Let your conversation be always full of grace,

seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.

Often it is seen as non-optional, especially in times of persecution. In such times the

believer is told to trust the help of the Holy Spirit rather than some academic training.

193 Frank Morison, Who Moved the Stone?, revised edition, Faber and Faber, London, 1975


84

Jesus says, Luke 12:11-12 When you are brought before synagogues, rulers and

authorities, do not worry about how you will defend yourselves or what you will say, for

the Holy Spirit will teach you at that time what you should say.

God has equipped every believer with an authoritative word – the Bible, a mind to

reflect and reason, a conversion experience as a testimony, the witness of the Spirit and

the fruit of the Spirit in Christian behaviour, placed him in a team (the church) along

with other believers. Each has been given a Christian worldview that has integrity, and

the ability to challenge the worldviews of others – simply by asking questions such as –

„why do you say that?‟ The available apologetic answers we can provide, if taught and

encouraged, are not just emotional and subjective.

All of this provides material for the Holy Spirit to use in drawing men to Christ. We are

called to be witnesses, not to do the work of grace. It is the Father who draws men to

Christ and the Holy Spirit wants to use the believer as a witness. Our world of competing

worldviews, cultures and religions, leaves us no place for neutrality. Our style of life

(what the New Testament calls our „conversation’) is part of the „answer‟ God calls us to

make.

This professionalising of Apologetics has had the additional sad implication that giving an

„answer‟ is purely a matter of logic and reasoning powers. But this is a spiritual more

than philosophical enterprise. That is why St. Paul stated categorically that faith cannot

be produced by argument.

For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us

who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written: ‘I will destroy the

wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.’ Where is

the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has

not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God

the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the

foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 1 Cor. 1:18-25

As Robert Brow says in his Origin of Religions 194,

If faith was the result of logical reasoning we would expect all the most

intelligent people to be converted to one religion or ideology. It seems that God in

his wisdom has insisted on freedom of religion, and this freedom cannot be forced

by human reason or logic.

A further aspect of the professionalising of Apologetics is the confused use of technical

terms which leave believers totally confused. An example is the recent (September

2008) reaction from the British Royal Society when it was suggested that Creationism

should be discussed in science lessons if raised by pupils. This was dismissed by the

Society as a primitive and ignorant thing to do and that Creationism should be banned

from discussion. The Anglican Church, in the Saturday edition of The Times for 13

September 2008, quickly asserted that Christians do not believe in Creationism. But the

very next day, Sunday, the Church expected all to share in the Creed, stating that we

believe in God the creator of heaven and earth. What clearer evidence can there be for

194 Robert Brow, Origins of Religion in The World's Religions, Lion Publishing. Tring, England, 1994.


85

the need of Apologetics to find its rightful place in the teaching of every fellowship of

believers.

The blunder of allowing Apologetics to become too esoteric and therefore of

little use to the ordinary believer.

Following on from what has been said about the professionalising of Apologetics, is the

blunder of presenting Apologetics in forms that are too esoteric and unintelligible. For

example, whole books are written showing that some extremely complex geological

finding probably indicates that creation is more likely than evolution. But the ordinary

reader does not have the training to evaluate what is presented and they do not have

the material evidence or laboratory equipment to verify what is said.

c) The blunder of allowing Apologetics to become detached from our Christian

purpose – to witness to Christ and the gospel.

So some apologists argue effectively that there is an intelligent designer behind our

universe, or that there must be a First Cause – but their conclusion leaves us completely

detached from proving that this is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. The

outcome of this approach is seen in the experience of Antony Flew, who after a lifetime

of teaching atheism, moved to being a theist – because the evidence is so strong. But

there is no evidence that he has become a follower of Jesus Christ.

In January 2004, at 81 years old, the legendary British philosopher and atheist

and icon and champion for unbelievers for decades – changed his mind. His

change of mind is significant news, not only about his personal journey, but also

about the persuasive power of the arguments modern theists have been using to

challenge atheistic naturalism. In an interview he declared that his former

writings were obsolete and that he had been particularly influenced by the

evidence for intelligent design.195

d) The blunder of thinking that one piece of evidence in some field of science

or philosophy may be presented as decisive and the final proof of God.

One example is the way in which whole books and departments have been devoted to

the proving of the Turin Shroud as the shroud of Christ. Or another example - the idea

that the protein Lamenin is the glue that holds the human body together and is in the

shape of a cross, like the one on which Jesus died, is proof that He is at the heart of all

things.

A typical response to such isolated evidence is found in an Internet blog –

I could barely make it through his over-energetic rant, but what I got out of it is

that he is desperately trying to make one Christian molecular biologist’s opinion

about one particular protein in the body that ‘holds’ it all together (isn't that what

proteins do anyway?) and trying to make it sound like the solid piece of proof that

195 My Pilgrimage from Atheism to Theism An Exclusive Interview with Former British Atheist Professor Antony Flew and Dr Gary Habermas, published in ‘Philosophia Christi’.


86

Christians have been waiting for since the dawn of the religion.196

e) The blunder of presenting the message of Christ and a Christian apologetic

in a way that avoids all association with the world’s criticism of the Church and

Christians.

Many of the polemic atheistic writers have expressed hatred of the Church and blamed

the Church for the evils in the world. They use simplistic slogans – ‘Religion is the cause

of all the wars and divisions in the world’. Feeling the heat of the attack, some

evangelists have tried to distance themselves from the Church. Their apologetic has

been to say that the Church is boring and possibly irrelevant and Christians are not

perfect and some have been evil. But Jesus is worth considering because he was not part

of the Church and he was perfect. One should not be too concerned about the Church,

but just consider the possibility of a relationship between ‘you and Jesus’.

The problem with this approach is immediately seen when a person comes to trust in

Christ and they are then told that they should join a local church. This is a complete

reversal of what they had been previously told.

Can you have an apologetic without the Church? The truth is that it is not possible to

have an apologetic without including the Church. It is part of the evidence. Creation

shows the glory of God but also the Church and its experience reflects the glory of

God.197

Savonarola makes a clear distinction between the political body of the Church and the

entire body of believers bound in fellowship by the Holy Spirit. CS Lewis in his Screwtape

Letters, writes a parable about the demonic world and has one senior demon writing to a

junior about a convert to Christianity.

One of our great allies at present is the church itself. Do not misunderstand me. I

do not mean the church as we see her spread out through all time and space and

rooted in eternity, terrible as an army with banners. That I confess is a spectacle

which makes our boldest tempters uneasy. But fortunately it is quite invisible to

these humans. All your patient sees is the half-finished sham gothic erection on

the new building estate. When he goes inside he sees the local grocer with rather

an oily expression on his face bustling up to offer him one shiny little book

containing a liturgy which neither of them understands. 198

When dealing with the failures of the Church and criticisms that are offered, we need to

respond with respect and gentleness. We should agree with what is provable and regret

it. We should show that what is criticised is not integral to Christ's teaching and

sometimes amounts to a clear rejection of his purposes. A parallel might be drawn with

the world of medicine where a number of evil doctors down through the years have used

their power and resources to accomplish great harm. But that does not mean that

196 http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/lofiversion/index.php/t126112.html

197 John 15:8 This is to my Father's glory, that you bear much fruit, showing yourselves to be my

disciples.

198 CS Lewis, Screwtape Letters, Collins Fontana, London, 1963. Page 15


87

medical skills are to be rejected wholesale, nor that all doctors are evil. In fact, the

reason we recognise the enormity of the evil is because it is a travesty of the purpose of

medicine. So too with the Church.

Brian Hepplethwaite comments on the importance of the witness of the Church and the

way it has impacted society for good.

So, I suggest, there are further appeals to history to be added to the cumulative

case for Christian belief. In addition to natural theology and the inner rationale of

Christian doctrine, in addition to the history of morality and religion, in addition to

the faith of Israel and the story of Jesus, not least his Resurrection, in addition to

the lives of the saints and the Christian Church, in so far as it actually does

embody and manifest the fruits of the Spirit, the apologist will also appeal to the

ways in which the values of the Kingdom can be seen to have penetrated society

and made their contribution to the redemption of the world.. 199

The Christian church it has been suggested may well rejoice that its spiritual

goods now exist in secular form. Secular respect for freedom of conscience and

the dignity of the person, secular commitment to the protection of the

handicapped, universal schooling and many other features of the modern state

may be regarded as secularised church treasures.200

We need to see that there can be no full Apologetic without the Church. It is part of the

purpose of Christ, who said, I will build my Church,201 and by this all men will know that

you are my disciples, if you love one another.202

Even in the terrible corruption of the Church in the 15th Century, Savonarola is able to

identify the true Church as a work of Christ. Because it is central he discloses that the

chariot in his motif of the Triumph of the Cross, is actually the Church.

If we carefully examine the works which Christ has performed, and still does

perform, in His Church (represented by this Chariot), we shall begin to be filled

with wonder. This will lead us to diligently seek out the cause of those works, and

as we do, we shall gradually rise to the knowledge of invisible things, and of the

divine majesty of Christ.203

Savonarola has a high doctrine of the Church. Like St Paul he would delight that Christ

loved the Church and gave himself for her. 204 He believed that the true Church was

made up of all those who were in a saving relationship with Christ as Lord. In his day,

the only place he could find the true Church was embedded in the Roman Catholic

Church. This because it was the only really functioning expression of the Church in the

West of Europe. He also valued the link with St Peter as first bishop of Rome, but was

199 Brian Hepplethwaite, In Defence of Christianity, Oxford University press, Oxford 2005 page 149

200 ibid page 134

201 Matt. 16:18

202 John 13:35


204 Ephes. 5:25


88

appalled by the state of the administration and leadership of organised religion.

f) The blunder of moving to the relativism of a pluralistic and blunted gospel.

In our Churches as well as in society, the secularists have become the high priests of

modernist thought. Their gospel is offered as one truth among many. There can be no

mention of a saviour, for we need none, nor of resurrection because it is incredible. To

reach unbelievers with such a gospel is not an urgency nor terribly important. To

confront such attitudes, so prevalent in church and in society, we are going to need both

competent apologetic and passionate commitment to evangelism.

Preaching on Acts 4:12, Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other

name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved, Michael Green said -

Yes this is an incredibly strong statement, all the more so because two different

Greek words are used for the word 'other' which comes twice in it. Peter is saying

that there is no 'additional' way of salvation, no 'Jesus and...' and no 'alternative'

way of salvation, no Krishna, no Muhammad as the way to salvation. That is very

tough. It is the height of political incorrectness. And you will find fierce opposition

to it in much of the church, which is so inclusive without the need for

transformation that Jesus almost becomes unnecessary, and faith in him is an

optional extra.205

Savonarola is equally clear -

From what has just been said, it is evident, that Christianity is the only true

religion. And if this is the case, then there is no salvation except through faith in

Christ, and all, except Christians, must be living in error.206

g) The blunder of presenting several or even many apologetic arguments

without ever seeing the relationship between them.

Apologetics has not only been professionalised, it has splintered in various specialist

areas. Each area is seen as self contained and valid in itself. Rather like the illustration of

the blind men examining different parts of an elephant.

Francis A. Schaeffer in The God Who Is There, notes this tendency to compartmentalise

learning and Apologetics and sees its roots in specialised education.

In our modern forms of specialized education there is a tendency to lose the

whole in the parts, and in this sense we can say that our generation produces few

truly educated people. True education means thinking by associating across the

various disciplines, and not just being highly qualified in one field, as a technician

might be. I suppose no discipline has tended to think more in fragmented fashion

205 Michael Green, sermon, 2nd October 2008 at installation of Rev. Dr. Justyn Terry as the new

president at Trinity School for Ministry at St. Stephens, Sewickley, PA.



89

than the orthodox or evangelical theology of today. Those standing in the stream

of historic Christianity have been especially slow to understand the relationships

between various areas of thought. 207

A number of Apologists have noted the weakness in putting forward one argument at a

time and then to have it countered or dismissed as of limited significance. There is also

the danger that if one has only one tool, for example a hammer, then one will think that

all problems can be solved by hitting them, because it is the only resource available. This

approach is not only crude – it can be destructive.

Their response has been to catalogue as many Apologetic reasons as possible and to try

to win the argument by quantity. Others like Norman Geisler and Phil Fernandes have

tried to form a stronger apologetic by presenting some linkage between the different

reasons. Phil Fernandes takes this approach in the Theism vs. Atheism debate with

Michael Martin, where he forms what he calls The Cumulative Case for God. He describes

this as Interdisciplinary Apologetics, and says that it is easier to deal with some attacks

by drawing on several areas of Apologetics rather than to offer answers from one

approach alone. This is particularly true when dealing with questions of ethics, theodicy,

or the inspiration and veracity of Scripture.

However Savonarola has shown that it is the holistic and integrated philosophy of the

Christian Faith which makes the argument so much stronger and effective. We need to

present the answer as a whole, not a random collection of parts.

h) The blunder of presenting Apologetics as a reactive exercise; trying to

defend the Faith against hostile arguments.

This usually involves a response to some argument or claim and can give the impression

of weakness as arguments are conceded or accommodated.

An example of this weak apologetic approach is given by Sir Jonathan Sacks, the Chief

Rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of the Commonwealth. Writing in an article in

The Times, London, August 29, 2008, in response to Richard Dawkins‟ book The God

Delusion208 and TV series on Darwin, Sacks says -

We will no doubt hear it asserted that Darwin dealt a death blow to religious

belief. That, it should be said, is quite untrue. What it dealt a death blow to was

one very poor argument for the existence of God, namely the argument from

design. This argument figures nowhere in the Hebrew Bible. It does not even

belong to its world of thought. It belongs instead to the tradition of Ancient

Greece and to the idea that the most important truths are those that can be

proved. In fact none of the most important truths can be proved.

In saying this he not only concedes the argument from design too cheaply, but veers

toward fideism by inferring that the most important truths are not those that can be

proven. In effect he is stepping back from the argument and saying that ‘proof’ is not an

207 Francis A. Schaeffer, The God Who Is There, Inter Varsity Press, London 1968, Ch. 1

208 Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, Bantam Press, London, 2006


90

issue for the believer – without ever defining proof.

To complete his apologetic Sacks then lists a set of issues and implies that if Dawkins

could deal a blow to each of these issues – then God would have nowhere to hide, he

would be a delusion.

The believer might mention other mysteries, such as how did life evolve from

non-life? How did sentience emerge? How was the uniquely human capacity for

self-consciousness born? How did life evolve at such speed that even Francis

Crick, co-discoverer of DNA, was forced to suggest that it came from Mars? And

the ultimate ontological question: why is there something rather than nothing?

None of these is a proof. Each, rather, is a source of wonder.

Sadly much of today‟s Apologetics makes such defensive and unsure piecemeal

responses to arguments which should be refuted, not conceded or accommodated. (A

better approach is to stand firm and show that in his argument, Dawkins is out of his

depth in The God Delusion and is easily refuted by a competent philosopher like Alvin

Plantinga.209)

Savonarola avoids all of these blunders.

Savonarola avoids all of these blunders by showing that all the evidence fits together as

a unity and forms an integrated philosophy. In doing this he is not only able to be our

contemporary and speak in our terms, he is in fact our master. He truly was a most

profound and original teacher and can be viewed as the Father of Modern Apologetics.

His schema begins with evidence for the existence of God and what it means for the

nature of humans if God is our creator. If God is our creator he must have had a

purpose, and the purpose must have an effective means to enable it to be achieved. The

means of God‟s effective working is his grace displayed in the person and work of Christ.

Christ must be the incarnate God because the effects of his power are proof of his claims

and are seen in the transformed lives of Christians. He is also affirmed as God become

man, by his claims and teaching. His teaching is significant and surpasses anything seen

or heard before. It reveals spiritual truth unavailable to reason alone and includes twelve

basic doctrines, which are detailed in the Creed. Its ethical content is revealed in the Ten

Commandments and the whole is given living expression in the Church, which Christ

promised to build. This Church has been guided by the revelation and record given in

Holy Scripture. This body of evidence provides a rational and integrated apologetic and

Worldview. This Worldview is more reasonable and better supported by experience than

any other explanation of life and its purpose. It can be compared and contrasted with

the philosophy of secular humanism, the hopes and beliefs of Judaism, the objectives of

Islam, the New Age and ancient Asian religions and of occult practices and astrology.

Because Christianity is centred on truth it is unsurprising that it should be the most

rational and most integrated and consistent Worldview and its gospel the most wonderful

news one could imagine.

209 See - Alvin Plantinga, The Dawkins Confusion - Naturalism ad absurdum, Books & Culture, March/April 2007. Available at http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2007/002/1.21.html


91

14 His - Triumph of the Cross

Savonarola wrote The Triumph of the Cross in late 1496, completing it about the time of

his excommunication in 1497. It was officially published a year later and became a great

success.

The Motif of Petrarch

The iconic device of a Triumph does not refer to the battle and victory won, but

specifically to the Victory Parade when the „triumph‟ was displayed and celebrated. It

was a motif used by Petrarch Francesco Petrarca (1304-1374) an earlier resident of

Florence, who had a huge influence on the literature and art of Florence. He was a

brilliant poet, musician, scholar, humanist and diplomat. His abiding legacy has been the

sonnet form of poetry. In his sonnets he used the motif of a triumphal entry, based on

ancient Roman military processions. It became a literary and artistic device for

celebrating love, fame, virtue and other popular Renaissance themes. But in a darker

mood in the „Triumph of Death', Petrarch reminded Christians that those human victories

were short-lived.

Clearly Savonarola was adopting a motif that was familiar and using it for his own

purpose. He converts the secular Renaissance triumph into a vivid metaphor of Christ‟s

victory over sin and death.

Let us, picture in our minds, a four-wheeled chariot on which is seated Christ. As

conqueror, he is crowned with thorns, and bears the marks of His wounds,

showing that it is through His passion and death that He has overcome the world.

Over His head shines a light like a triple sun. This represents the Blessed Trinity,

which envelops His humanity, and the whole Church, with unspeakable splendour.

In His left hand Christ holds the Cross and the instruments210 of His passion, in

His right, the Old and the New Testaments. At His feet are the bread and wine of

Communion;211 the oil for blessing and healing;212 and the other symbols of the

sacraments. The Blessed Mother of God,213 the Virgin Mary, is seated beneath her

Son. Around, and below her, are vessels of gold, silver and precious stones, filled

with ashes and bones of the dead. The Apostles and Preachers go before the

Chariot, appearing to draw it along. The Patriarchs, the Prophets, and

innumerable men and women of the Old Testament precede them. The Chariot is

210 The tools used at His crucifixion.

211 „Host and chalice’

212 „Vessels of balsam and oil’

213 Mother of God is a title of honour given to Mary the mother of Jesus. The title tells us

something about Jesus. It affirms that she was His mother and He had a supernatural conception, but a natural birth. So He was truly human. But He was also divine because Mary had given birth to a uniquely conceived child. This child was the Lord – the Old Testament title for God. The title does not indicate that Mary was the First Cause in bringing God into being, but is based on the incident in Luke‟s gospel. Luke 1:41-43 When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. [42] In a loud voice she exclaimed:

‘Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the child you will bear! [43] But why am I so favoured, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?


92

encircled by the army of Martyrs, forming as it were a crown. They, again, are

surrounded by the Doctors of the Church, bearing open books. Around them are

circled a countless multitude of virgins, of both sexes, adorned with lilies. Behind

the Chariot follow crowds of men and women of all nations and backgrounds -

Jews, Greeks, Romans, barbarians, rich and poor, learned and simple, small and

great, old and young; all of whom together, are praising Christ.

All around this whole host, gathered from the Old and from the New Testaments,

are the crowded ranks of the enemies of the Church of Christ - emperors and

kings, princes and men of power, sages, philosophers, heretics, slaves and

freemen, men and women, rich and poor, learned and simple - people of every

race and of every tongue. Whilst around them lie smashed and broken idols,

burnt heretical books, and the defeated remains of all sects and false religions.214

Having established this triumphal motif, he goes on to build an apologetic for the Faith

as an integrated whole philosophy. It involves a dialectic discussion of the visible and

invisible worlds, reason and faith, body and spirit, nature and grace, ceremonial religion

and religion of the heart.215

His readers in Florence would also remember the triumphal entry of King Charles VIII,

into their city. It was a time of great rejoicing and hope, a time of pomp and ceremony.

There was a display of power but it was beneficent and concluded with prayers in the

Duomo. Such a spectacle would naturally colour the motif in the minds of the readers.

The work of Averroes

But it is probable that there was another influence which prompted the writing and the

form of this work. Averroes (1126 - 1198) whose Arabian name was Abdul Muhammad

Ibn Rushd, was an Islamic - Arabian philosopher. He lived in Spain, working as a

physician. His philosophical teaching, called Averroism was based on Aristotle's belief

that any event or existence can only be explained by discussion of its material, formal,

efficient and final cause. He spent three decades producing multiple commentaries on all

of Aristotle‟s works, except his Politics, covering every subject from aesthetics and ethics

to logic and zoology. He also wrote about Plato‟s Republic, and the works of Nicolaus of

Damascus, and Ptolemy. His commentaries and books were known in Florence and

regarded highly. Savonarola makes reference to them in TOTC - Book 4 chapter 2.

It is possible that the Prior adopted the basic presuppositions for his work from a major

work of Averroes. The Islamic Scholar had written a treatise on the doctrine of God

known as Al-Kashf 'an Manahij al-Adilla fi ‘Aqaid al-Milla (the Exposition of the Methods

of Proof Concerning the Beliefs of the Community). His purpose was to examine religious

beliefs and doctrines to see if they were consistent with the intention of „Allah.‟ He

begins by examining the arguments for the existence of God and favours the argument

from Providence, which parallels the modern Anthropic Principle. He said that one can


215 Donald Weinstein, Savonarola: Piety, Prophecy and Politics in Renaissance Florence,

Bridwell Library, Dallas, 1994, pp. 11-12


93

observe that everything in the universe serves the purpose of humanity. The sun, the

moon, the earth and the weather are examples of how the universe is conditioned for

humans. If the universe is, then, so finely tuned, then there must be a fine tuner - God.

After establishing the existence of God, Averroes went on to describe the nature and

attributes of God, beginning with the doctrine of divine unity. Then he moves from the

attributes of God to the actions of God, and a definition of creation, including a polemic

against the philosophers who held the eternal existence of the physical universe.

Clearly the major starting point of Averroes and Savonarola are very similar and one

may have been the inspiration of the other. But having started out, then the Triumph of

the Cross covers far more topics and territory and has an entirely different destination.

Parallel with Romans

The epistle of St Paul to the Romans provides a close parallel with the schema of

Savonarola. Both authors present the Christian Philosophy as an integrated whole, and

that its „wholeness‟ is the key to and strength of their Apologetic argument.

Shaeffer said that he would use the whole of Romans to present the Christian message

rather than rely on proof texts and a fragmentary communication. John Stackhouse also

recognises the importance of getting people to read the Bible as a primary text.

Many Christians, in fact, seem reluctant even to suggest Bible reading to their

friends for fear, perhaps, that they will be seen as ‘pushing too hard.’ Yet

students of any religion know that reading the primary text of a religion is a

necessary part of one's acquaintance with it. Indeed, God's Holy Spirit

characteristically impresses the truth of the Bible on people's minds such that

they just believe it to be the very Word of God. People come to believe that the

Bible is the Word of God by encountering it and then simply seeing that it is such.

Thomas Aquinas and John Calvin described and defended this phenomenon in the

language of their day; philosopher Alvin Plantinga216 has done so in our own. 217

Savonarola was well acquainted with Romans. He quotes from the epistle several

times and it could well have been an influence, consciously or unconsciously, in forming

his Apologetic.

St Paul’s argument in his letter to the Romans

St Paul‟s argument flows through the entire epistle as he expounds the whole Christian

philosophy. He begins with the statement that he is a servant of the gospel and then

moves into the exposition of the gospel. Paul the Apostle, from his Jewish background of

legal training and analysis of the Torah, and from his knowledge of the history of Israel,

216 See Alvin Plantinga, Warranted Christian Belief, Oxford University Press, New York, 2000. Cf. Nicholas Wolterstorff, Divine Discourse: Philosophical Reflections on the Claim that God Speaks: Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1995

217 John G. Stackhouse Jr, Humble Apologetics: Defending the Faith Today. Oxford University

Press: New York. 2002. Page 195.


94

is able to discern a God who is ethically consistent and faithful. A God we can rely upon.

All sense of rightness comes from the righteousness of God. The Apostle Paul is

able to present an integrated theology of God's plan of salvation, because he has a firm

belief in a moral and consistent holy God. The key word is „righteousness’, used 35

times. This word sums up for St Paul, the ethical standards of holiness, and consistent

action, within the fellowship of the holy Trinity. This concept of the relationship of love

and collaboration between the members of the Godhead is equally as important as the

right activity and correct moral choices of a holy God. As far as humans are concerned

the idea of „righteousness’ is rooted in the purpose of creation, with humans brought

into a living relationship with God – as a part of his household.

Deut. 10:12 And now, O Israel, what does the Lord your God ask of you but to

fear the Lord your God, to walk in all his ways, to love him, to serve the Lord

your God with all your heart and with all your soul,

God’s grace lifts us into the righteousness of God. So for St Paul, the glory of the

Gospel is that God has found a way to be ethically consistent in showing mercy, and in

grace he goes on to lift us into a relationship with himself, which is „righteousness’.

St Paul’s use of ethics. Romans is not a treatise on ethics, but a full analysis of the

Gospel. However the gospel has its context within the heart and activity of a holy God.

Romans 1:17 For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a

righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: ‘The

righteous will live by faith.’

From this framework, St Paul is able to describe

The moral accountability and guilt of mankind,

The moral consistency of God in redemption,

The behaviour required of those who are Justified by grace.

The moral accountability and guilt of mankind - the Gentiles are guilty. St Paul

begins his argument by proving the guilt of the Gentiles, before a holy God. His test for

judgment is the Righteousness of God. Gentiles are guilty because they are out of

fellowship with God (a consequence of sin).

Romans 1:18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the

godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness,

They have wrong motives and seek to please themselves. They have wrong actions and

do what is repugnant to God. They have a problem with their knowledge of God and his

demands, but any claim of ignorance actually compounds guilt, because what could be

known of God has been ignored. (note the common root of Ignorance and Ignore) or

suppressed.


95

God’s basis of ethical judgment. The truth of God is his ethical consistency, which

has been revealed and enables St Paul to deduce the basis of God‟s Judgment. His

judgment will be on the basis of moral acts. What has been done and what are the

consequences.

Romans 2:2 Now we know that God's judgment against those who do such

things is based on truth.

Romans 2:6 God ‘will give to each person according to what he has done.’

His judgment will include Motivation and Conscience and his judgment will be impartial.

Romans 2:11 For God does not show favouritism (since they show that the

requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also

bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.)

This will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets through Jesus

Christ, as my gospel declares.

The Jews are guilty. The Jews are in a more serious state because their knowledge of

God and his law, was fuller than that revealed to the gentiles. They have the ceremonies

associated with a righteous relationship with God, but their heart (Motivation and

relationship) is not right. Claiming what is untrue about their relationship with God

further compounds their guilt.

Romans 2:17 Now you, if you call yourself a Jew; if you rely on the law and brag

about your relationship to God; Romans 2:24 As it is written: ‘God's name is

blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.’

The world is guilty. In chapter three St Paul describes the world as guilty. None are

righteous, all are ignorant of God‟s will and purposes, all are out of relationship with

God, all have corrupt motivation with evil desires and thoughts leading to evil actions,

and in being in this state, they have seared their consciences. This is what is described

as total depravity. Not that man is as corrupt as possible, but that corruption has

affected every aspect of his moral character.

Romans 3:18 ‘There is no fear of God before their eyes.’

Only a religion that acknowledges a source of grace and power outside of man

can speak to this condition.218

The moral consistency of God in redemption. The Law of God has defined sin, but is

unable to offer a means to solve mankind‟s moral dilemma. God is left in the position of

a moral Agent, who has limited options. One option is to destroy his corrupt creation.

But this is not possible because he is true to his attribute of Love and his Motivation is to

show grace. However this does not leave an opportunity to just disregard sin, because

his holiness has been provoked to judgment. The solution is the redemption of mankind

218 Geoffrey B Wilson, Romans, Banner of Truth Trust, London 1969, page 74


96

by the saving act of Christ. His action on our behalf is received by us through faith.

Romans 3:24 and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that

came by Christ Jesus.

But it is not achieved by overlooking sin. All are guilty of wrong actions and being out of

relationship with God.

Romans 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

So God has to judge sin

Romans 3:25 God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his

blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had

left the sins committed beforehand unpunished - he did it to demonstrate his

justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who

have faith in Jesus.

There are those who accuse God of acting un-ethically, if this were the case. It would

mean that an innocent was caused to suffer for the guilty. This would be unjust.

However, as Norman Geisler points out, Graded Absolutism is a position that suggests

there are higher and lower moral laws. Jesus himself spoke of the least and the greatest

of the commandments. In some cases there are unavoidable moral conflicts. Such a

conflict is seen in the cross of Christ. Here the right thing to do was to fulfil the higher

law. Jesus fulfilled the just demands of a Holy God, he fulfilled the Loving Purpose of a

Gracious God and both of these actions rank above that of freely laying down a life.

It is wrong that the innocent should suffer on behalf of the guilty, yet he suffered for our

sins and we are declared justified. This is a problem for the liberal theologian who cannot

see that both moral laws are not of equal weight and that the saving of the souls of

humanity is of greater consequence.219

Proofs of God’s consistency and of the gospel. St Paul goes on to show that this

gospel is consistent with the way God has always been operating in relationship with

man. Abraham was accepted by faith, as was Moses.

The results of the gospel. God is enabled to justify those who trust in Christ, not only

is sin forgiven, but also the key relationship with God is restored. Wrath is turned away

and glory is promised.

Romans 5:9-10 Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more

shall we be saved from God's wrath through him! For if, when we were God's

enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much

more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life!

219 Norman L Geisler, Christian Ethics – Options and Issues, Baker Book House 1990, his

argument page 217.


97

The basis for this righteousness is the action of Christ. Sin came through one man‟s

disobedience, and through one man‟s sacrificial obedience, there is a greater effect and

Christ is able to reverse the consequences of sin. St Paul is saying in effect, ‘If one man

could cause all this sin, then it would only take one man to reverse it, if that man were

perfect and fulfilled the requirements of the righteousness of God.

The behaviour required of those who are justified by grace. Having been brought

into a new relationship with God, how are we to live? If faith brings forgiveness, can we

just live in sin and call down cleansing as required? As Winston Churchill described the

behaviour of some young men, „They sow their wild oats and then pray to God for a

crop failure.‟

Romans 6:1 What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may

increase?

St Paul now begins to lay the foundation for his Christian ethic.

As dead to sin. We are to live as if dead to sin and alive to righteousness. This

means that we can be morally free. The act of faith is to identify with Christ and as

he died with our sin upon him and rose morally clean, he was taking our place and

we must identify with his action by being willing to die to sin and to rise to live clean

in him. Death was the way to kill off the natural bias (nature) of sin. Now we are free

agents – free to live for God.

Romans 6:14 For sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law, but

under grace.

As slaves. We have been bought by God and are in moral obligation to him. This

is sanctification.

Romans 6:20-23 When you were slaves to sin, you were free from the control of

righteousness. What benefit did you reap at that time from the things you are now

ashamed of? Those things result in death! But now that you have been set free from

sin and have become slaves to God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the

result is eternal life. For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in

Christ Jesus our Lord.

As related to Christ. We were in relationship to the law, and out of relationship

with God. Now we have a new relationship in Christ. Our Motivation is now no longer

a written code which condemns, but the life of the Spirit of Jesus within. The Law

dealt with actions, but the Spirit gets to our hearts. Romans 7:6 But now, by dying

to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the

new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.

As living in the Spirit. The Spirit of God at work in our hearts gives new

motivation and power to live in righteousness. The Holy Spirit is the very life of God


98

within us. This key area of righteousness is not just DEEDS, but relationship.

Romans 8:9 You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if

the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he

does not belong to Christ. 8:15 For you did not receive a spirit that makes you a

slave again to fear, but you received the Spirit of sonship.

The change of behaviour is not a result of resolve, but of relationship. A relationship

leading to glory.

A New Ethical Code.

In chapters 12 to 15 St Paul deals with specifics of Christian behaviour. This ethic differs

from that of the Old Testament in that it addresses both individuals living in an alien

environment, and the small gathered Church community. The Old Testament had

addressed the whole nation as a society in relationship to Yahweh – „holy‟ and called by

his name. The group to whom St Paul writes is living in a hostile state with no cultural

support for the faith, and with many points of conflict with Christian values. This

especially colours his ethic with regard to the state, in chapter 13.

This ethic also differs from the ethic of the Old Testament in that it does not offer an

external holiness code. Instead it has these elements.

What is ‘good’ is God’s will, not written on stone, but in the heart. It is

discerned by submission. Being surrendered to God‟s will is our Motivation and leads

to Knowledge of his will and understanding of his purpose. Romans 12:1-3 Therefore,

I urge you, brothers, in view of God's mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices,

holy and pleasing to God--this is your spiritual act of worship. Do not conform any

longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind.

Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is--his good,

pleasing and perfect will.

The believer is not an isolated Christian; we are to be plugged into the

fellowship. This faith of ours is a team game and each needs to be a team player.

Romans 12:3-8 For by the grace given me I say to every one of you: Do not think of

yourself more highly than you ought, but rather think of yourself with sober

judgment, in accordance with the measure of faith God has given you. Just as each

of us has one body with many members, and these members do not all have the

same function, so in Christ we who are many form one body, and each member

belongs to all the others. We have different gifts, according to the grace given us. If

a man's gift is prophesying, let him use it in proportion to his faith. If it is serving, let

him serve; if it is teaching, let him teach; if it is encouraging, let him encourage; if it

is contributing to the needs of others, let him give generously; if it is leadership, let

him govern diligently; if it is showing mercy, let him do it cheerfully.

The Life of the Spirit within, needs to be expressed in Actions and attitudes

which are Christ-like.

This will affect our attitude and relationship with society

This will affect our attitude and relationship with the State.


99

The most extensive passage in the New Testament dealing with the Christian and the

State, is found in Romans 12. Government is God‟s will and the State has a delegated

authority.

Our main motivations are to be Love and our eschatological Hope.

Romans 13:8 Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one

another, for he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law. :11 And do this,

understanding the present time. The hour has come for you to wake up from your

slumber, because our salvation is nearer now than when we first believed.

Judgment of moral actions should be on the basis of Conscience, which has

been educated by the Holy Spirit.

Moral decisions should be made through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, who

will teach us through the example of Jesus, and the relationship within the

Christian fellowship.

Romans 15:3-4 For even Christ did not please himself but, as it is written: ‘The

insults of those who insult you have fallen on me.’ For everything that was written in

the past was written to teach us, so that through endurance and the encouragement

of the Scriptures we might have hope. Romans 15:14 I myself am convinced, my

brothers, that you yourselves are full of goodness, complete in knowledge and

competent to instruct one another.

St Paul’s Conclusion. St Paul has given us the dignity of an ethic, where we are

treated as children and not slaves. As part of the family of God we are called to

relationship and a way of living that brings glory to the Father. But it is also a way of

living that brings the possibility of glory to us as we are treated as moral adults, with the

ability to discern the will of God, as we keep in relationship with God.

In none of this did Paul provide a timeless moral code and simply demand

obedience to it. Rather he brought the gospel to bear upon the particular question

of specific congregations and resources they had for dealing with them. He

addressed the communities as being capable of the discernment called for.220

The law gives direction, but it cannot condemn and we are no longer under its curse.

The gospel of grace releases us from the guilt of failure and opens new

possibilities for a new effort. Moreover it offers a new relationship with the

Commander. He who pointed us to the design for living at Mount Sinai, embraces

us with love at Mount Calvary. What God expects of ordinary people is obedience

born of gratitude, what God gives ordinary people is forgiveness born of grace.

Once forgiven, we hear his commands, not as a burden, but as an invitation to

enjoy our humanity, and in our joy, to glorify our Creator.221

220 A D Verhey, New Dictionary of Christian Ethics and Pastoral Theology, Inter Varsity

Press, Downers Grove, Illinois 1995, page 62

221 Lewis B Smedes, Mere Morality, Erdmans, Grand Rapids, 1983, page 243


100

His writing of The Triumph of the Cross

The form of the book is not a sonnet such as Petrarch would have produced, but one

which was entirely new for the period. It is filled with great analytical reasoning and

closely argued syllogisms. His apologetic is a complete exposition of the Christian Faith

but without the trappings of scholasticism which had been fundamental to all other

theological works of the time. The scholastic method had been used to confine the truth

of the Faith as an exclusive possession of the clergy. But Savonarola throws this idea to

one side in his desire to reach the ordinary believers and seekers after truth. He even

takes the time to translate and re-write the whole work into Italian with the hope that it

would be more accessible to all who had a basic education.

The work is divided into four „books’ and a prologue, which states his apologetic purpose,

his presuppositions and his method of working.

When one takes into account the circumstances and pressures upon Savonarola at the

time of writing, then it is a remarkable achievement. The circumstances also give

evidence for the multi purposes that motivated the writing. There is the desire to bring

people to Christ and to see them converted and growing in their faith, and there is the

desire to provide a full apologetic and exposition of the Christian Faith and lastly there

was the intention that this should be an apologetic for Savonarola himself – proving that

he was not a heretic.

In fact, the Pope never disputed a single belief or doctrine expressed by the Prior. The

cardinals who were consulted by the Pope examined the work carefully and found it was

without a flaw.

15 Savonarola’s Schema

It is instructive to see the schema that Savonarola uses to support his holistic

Apologetic. This schema is pictured in the motif of Christ in Triumph. But first, we should

note that his motivation is evangelistic – to bring people to trust Christ. The Authority for

his argument is reason alone. His Presuppositions are that, Empirical and Rational

processes allow a meaningful observation of the Creation, the nature of man and of the

works of Christ.

Fundamental and undeniable truths.

Christ is universally accepted as an historical figure who was crucified, and he

is worshipped by a major part of all nations

This Christian worship includes belief in the Trinity and the Sacraments.

The foundation for the Church is significant because it is not what one would

expect. Weak fishermen in a remote region were chosen to change the world

through an executed rabbi.

That the Church grew in the face of persecution and fierce attack, is

significant.

The evidence of existence and creation shows there is a God.

Our experience of the world shows evidence of a Prime Mover


101

Our experience of the world shows evidence of contingency and an Effective

First Cause

Our experience of the world shows evidence of gradation and therefore there

must be the highest form of perfection – a supreme being

Our experience of the world shows evidence of an intelligent creator

Our experience of humanity is that there is an 'in built' desire to worship.

The God that is deduced from the evidence – is ONE God.

Holy Christian living is evidence that this ONE God is the God and Father of our

Lord Jesus Christ. The intrinsic effects of faith are evidence that its source is

God.

Christian living is an experience additional to outward worship

Christian living is not fruit of self effort

Christian living is holy – therefore not caused by evil

Christian living is moral – therefore not based on lies and un-truth

Christian living has a focus in Christ as its power

Christian living is in harmony with the God of truth as prime mover

The Gospel of Christ is true because it is the source of the Christian life.

Christ is not only the source of the Christian Life – he is its goal.

The fruit of the Spirit is the fruit of the Spirit of God.

The experience of Christians is of the grace of God.

Christianity is marked by the speed at which personal transformation takes

place and the quality of the Christ-like character that is produced.

No other religion or philosophy can produce such transforming power.

Christian living has been tested in the heat of persecution

The Scriptures testify that this ONE God is the God and Father of our Lord

Jesus Christ, and that he is the author of Scripture.

Scripture affirms God by prophecy.

Scripture affirms God in its unity and harmony

Scripture affirms God by its power

Scripture affirms God by its truth

The Exterior effects of faith are evidence that its source is the God and Father

of our Lord Jesus Christ.

The worship of Christ is so widespread that it is a phenomenon needing

explanation.

- The good effects of the sacraments would not be produced unless they

were from God.

- The results of the sacraments are not psychologically induced.

The effects of faith on the inward life are evidence that its source is the God

and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

The chief effect of faith in Christ is peace and joy in spirit and soul.

Faith in Christ has supernatural power, seen when it is experienced by those

who endure pain, persecution or torture.


102

This peace is based in truth. It leads to renouncing the pleasures and wealth

of this world for the discernment and spiritual sensitivity found in following

Christ.

The source of peace is Christ and his converting power is released in those

who love and trust him.

The Works of Christ are evidence that He is divine and ONE with God the

Father.

Seen in the power of his works and their miraculous results

Seen in the wisdom of his works and effectiveness of his teaching.

Seen in the truth of his teaching

Seen in the goodness of his works

Seen in the grace of his passion

God is beyond full human comprehension, so some aspects of his nature are

only known by divine revelation. He has made such revelation because he

wants men to come to salvation and trust in him. The things revealed are

summed up in the Creed.

There is one God, who is Trinity in unity.

He is the Creator and Lord of History

He is saviour and offers salvation from sin, through grace

He promises a future hope of eternal life

The Atonement, Incarnation and Virgin birth are essential in satisfying the

holiness, justice, mercy and love of God, in relation to mankind.

The Commands of the Christian faith demand a holiness that reveals the

holiness and standards of God.

The Decalogue demands love and honour for God

The Decalogue demands love and honour for one’s neighbour

Its demands cannot be met without supernatural grace.

It is the basis for the moral teaching of the Church

It underlies the judicial law of the Church

The Ceremonies and Sacraments of the Church are instituted by Christ to match

the needs of mankind.

They represent Christ

They are a means of receiving his grace, but not the source of grace.

They are Christ’s means of ordering his Church

They are Christ’s means of being present with his people – the body of Christ.


103

The Christian Worldview is the only rational Worldview, because Christianity is

Uniquely True.

Human Philosophies fail to explain the purpose of life or the true nature of

man.

Astrology is futile, irrational and false.

Polytheistic Religions are evil and they usurp the honour due to God.

Judaism is condemned by its own Scriptures for rejecting the Messiah

Christian Heresies and Cults are often immoral and damage the unity of the

Church by rejecting the teaching of the Scriptures and the Church

Islam offers no certain salvation because it rejects the divinity of Christ and

his atonement.

Conclusion

Christianity is Reasonable and has a Solid Foundation

Other world views do not have such Solid Foundation

It would be unreasonable not to act on the evidence and commit to Christ

16 Savonarola’s Propositions and Proof

I now want to examine in more detail, the Propositions he promotes and the Proofs he

offers. I have already looked at his arguments concerning the Gospel and Salvation. See

page 99. This is a major issue because it relates directly to Savonarola‟s stated

motivation in writing. (see below) But now I will undertake a general overview but with a

closer look at two of his arguments; the truth about the nature of Christ and his analysis

of Judaism. The reason for looking in more detail at these two topics is to provide an

example of his incisive logic and mastery of Scripture.

Motivation. Savonarola begins by stating his motive is evangelistic. His desire is not to

win an argument or to gain a following, but to see people come to faith in Christ. This is

the only valid motivation for Apologetics.

there are men living today in such bondage to sin, that, even in the light of the

noonday sun, they grope in darkness, and scorn the marvels of heavenly science.

I am, therefore, on fire with zeal for the House of God222, and concerned

for the salvation of these misguided men.223

Presuppositions. There needs to be some agreed basis on which any meaningful

argument can be built. Savonarola asks his readers to agree that –

Empirical Knowledge is valid data for rational discussion.

222 Psalm 69:9 - for zeal for your house consumes me, and the insults of those who insult you fall

on me.



104

Empirical and Rational processes allow a meaningful observation of the Creation,

and of the works of Christ. They also provide a means of evaluating the evidence

provided by such observation.

This is a proper thing to do. Scripture says we can discover truths about the invisible

God by examining what is visible and has been revealed. Reasoning is a gift given to

humanity in creation – a natural virtue and good to use.

Again, it is universally agreed, that the peculiar and highest activity of man is

understanding and reasoning. And man is the principle agent of this activity. As

man is composed of matter and an intelligent mind, we cannot say that he is

capable of reasoning by virtue of the matter of which he is composed, but solely

by virtue of his mind. Consequently, as this mind is nothing but the intelligent

soul, it is the intelligent soul which is the essence of man. 224

Such evidences confirm us in our Faith, and prove to our adversaries that our

believing is not mindless, but thoughtful and with intellectual rigour.225

Fundamental and undeniable truths. Having agreed the presuppositions involved in

evaluating the evidence, he now presents the most basic truths that should be accepted

and upon which the argument will be built. The things, which are significant and need to

be explained, are –

Christ is universally accepted as an historical figure who was crucified, and he is

worshipped by a major part of all nations.

Not only is there the evidence for the Faith of Christ observable in his day, but there is

the evidence of a long historic root going back over thousands of years and shaping

history. The Jews and Old Testament prophesied and expected a Messiah (Christ).

Following the New Testament period, the Jews and Muslims accepted the person of

Jesus, though rejecting his claims.

This Christian worship includes belief in the Trinity and the Sacraments.

The foundation for the Church is significant because it is not what one would

expect. Weak fishermen in a remote region were chosen to change the world

through an executed rabbi.

On a human level we would not have given much chance of the enterprise of Christ‟s

mission being successful as we look at its beginnings. But it is even more interesting to

look at the evidence as Savonarola does and ask, „What is the cause of all the signs and

expressions of Christianity we see?‟ Then there is surprise to find that the first cause is a

tiny group of Galilean fishermen and their rabbi. Especially when one sees the harsh

persecutions which were suffered, became moments of growth and not retreat.

That the Church grew in the face of persecution and fierce attack, is significant.

Challenge and Rebuttal of fundamental Truths. The challenge is - If Christ is so




105

important, why do so few pagan writers celebrate him? His answer is that – Some did.

Of those who did, some were converted and died as martyrs for Christ. But many did not

speak of Christ because God chose not to use them because their paganism made them

unfit means of communication. The person of Christ is Truth and their handling of truth

issues was unreliable. The person of Christ is Holy and their immoral attitudes would

have made them unsuitable communicators. Their motivation was always to bring glory

to themselves so they were unsuitable to write about the glory of Christ. Their

intellectual blindness and hardness of heart meant they dismissed the miracles of Christ

without really examining the evidence. Their hatred of Christianity meant they would not

wish to give testimony to Christ. Their subsistence was provided by patronage and so

they wrote what would win friends and gain wealth. They had little interest in extolling a

poor crucified Galilean who seemed to only offer poverty and suffering.

The Mode in which the Argument is conducted.

Natural Revelation and Reason can establish the existence of a God who is unity

and simplicity of being.

Human (natural) Reason cannot deduce everything, because it is human and has

limitations.

Divine Revelation speaks of things beyond Natural Revelation, such as the Trinity

and the Incarnation.

Natural Revelation (what is revealed in nature and creation) precedes Divine or

Special Revelation – therefore the argument will begin with Natural Revelation

and the evidences found in nature. Then it will move to consider the evidences of

effects which have a divine explanation.

The evidence of existence and creation shows there is a God. He defines God as

the highest good, the supreme truth, the first cause, the prime mover – the highest

being. (Savonarola wants to point to the commonly held consensus regarding the Five

Ways of Aquinas, in which Aquinas uses the philosophy of Aristotle to affirm God as a

First Cause or Prime Mover. Because these ideas were commonly held he feels free to

refer to them briefly. His reference is partly to show that belief in God is reasonable and

partly to show that his approach to the evidence he will be examining is parallel and

equally valid.)

The evidence for God includes –

A Prime Mover is required to explain existence.

A First Cause is required to explain creation.

A Supreme Truth is required to explain ultimate truth and perfection.

An Intelligent Designer is required to explain the complexity and interdependence

of nature.

A Supreme Being is required to explain the natural urge in all people, to offer

worship.


106

The God that is deduced from the evidence – is ONE God.

To deal with the question of many possible gods, he uses the Ontological argument of

Anselm. That than which no greater can be thought. From this he deduces that

logically God must be one, because for there to be several gods would indicate a greater

among them unless they were all equal in every way, and if that were possible one

would still need to be the first cause. This one God would be ALL perfect and an Effective

(intelligent) first cause.

God is Spirit. He does not need a body nor is He dependent upon other bodies or beings,

but is self contained and self sufficient. He is consistent because he is immutable and

pure act. He is perfect and Supreme Good. He is Infinite in Power. He is ubiquitous -

omnipresent. He is eternal. God is One in Unity. He is omniscient – and knows all things

perfectly. He acts from Free Will and without constraints. He acts with humanity in ways

that recognise the gift of Free Will with which He has ennobled man by creating him in

His image. He is the creator. He rules and governs all creation with providential care.

God is Love and is personal with the ability of self-disclosure. He is purposeful and has a

reason for the creation of humankind.

The method for evaluating the evidence for a relationship between God and

mankind and the place of Christ.

At the start of Book Two, Savonarola explains that he will establish the truth of the

Christian Faith by using natural reasoning to examine the works of Christ and the good

deeds of Christians. Both are open to investigation and are of significance and need

some explanation for their existence. He says -

We will demonstrate the truth of the Faith of Christ: first, by arguments founded

on the Christian life; secondly, by others based on the cause of this life; and

thirdly, by those drawn from the effects of this life. This chain of reasoning will

embrace almost everything that is at present taking place within the Church

militant.226

Holy Christian living is evidence that its source is God the Father and his son

Jesus Christ.

Man is the noblest of God‟s creation because he is made in God‟s image, has been given

free will and has a purpose. The purpose is to glorify God in this world and to share

intimacy with God in the next. Therefore the soul of man is immortal. Man is capable of

meaningful relationship with God and with other men. This is possible because of God‟s

self disclosure and man‟s rational understanding; though this understanding is limited

and imperfect. Man can know happiness as well as other emotions including negative

ones, such as sorrow. Man is morally accountable and capable of great good and great

evil. Because of his special nature, in his heart man has a sense of eternal issues. Man



107

has intelligence and rational powers. Man is a psychosomatic being.

Every effect turns naturally to its cause; submits itself to its cause, in order to

become like it; and, in a certain sense, invokes the protection of its cause. By

acting in this way, the effect is paying honour and worship to its cause. Now, as

man is the effect of God, there must be in his nature an instinct prompting him to

turn to God, to become subject to Him, to resemble Him, and to invoke Him, in

order to obtain from Him beatitude.227

Therefore worship is natural and instinctive as well as a response to divine revelation.

Worship involves total response from man by engaging his mind, will and emotions and

affecting his character and conduct.

The worship of Christ is so widespread that it is a phenomenon needing

explanation.

This evidence is expressed in Christian worship, writings and monuments, and

sacraments.

Further witness to this conviction is found in the books written in every language

and published throughout the world. There is also evidence in the ruins of

Christian churches to be found in every land. These are proof positive that there

is not a spot on the face of the earth where Christ has not been worshipped, or is

not still adored, or where there is at least some knowledge of Christianity. That is

why even unbelievers speak of Christ as the God of the Christians. 228

The Eucharist or Communion may be used to represent the sacramental aspect of

worship. The results of the sacraments are not psychologically induced. Their effects lead

to spiritual and physical well-being. If God were not involved then sacraments would be

lies – but then they would not have good results. Because they point to truth and are

from God, we can conclude that organised worship is the outcome, not of a human, but

of a divine Spirit.

Only God’s goodness and truth that can produce an effect so excellent as to give

birth to the Christian life, and to nourish and perfect it. Because this life is wholly

of God’s Spirit, it cannot be explained by any physical power. 229

Christian living is in addition to outward worship.

The evidence does not just consist in outward ceremonial, but in the holiness of life and

inward devotion of the true Christians. Those who evidence the most holiness are firmest

in admitting that Christ is the cause and that the only progress made is when he is

acknowledged as Lord. Their behaviour is not the cause of their faith, but the effect and

that faith is a gift.





108

All secondary causes are instruments of a primary cause. Therefore Christ, the

man who was crucified, is the instrument whereby God chooses to produce that

wonderful effect - the Christian life. 230

Again, God has a method in His proceedings. His wisdom governs inferior things

by those that are superior to them. And since the cause is always more perfect

than the effect, He has ordained noblest causes for the noblest effects, As there is

not in the world a more noble effect than the Christian life, it follows that the

cause from which it springs must be the noblest possible. Since the Christian life

is an effect of the Faith of Christ, we must acknowledge that, that Faith, far from

being a fable, is the noble cause of a noble effect.

Christian living is not the result of self effort.

It requires purity of heart, but means more than natural goodness or moral living.

Because man is not able to reach such a requirement, it must be the fruit of divine

grace. There is the evidence of good Christian lives – but the explanation is not self

effort.

the perfect Christian life, is not the result of natural love, nor is it the creation

neither of the imagination nor even of reason; that it is not influenced by

astrology nor by any angel or demon; but that it comes from the grace of God,

supernaturally poured into the soul. 231

Christian living is holy – therefore not caused by evil.

The evidence is that the Christian life of worship is the highest form of life possible. It is

the most altruistic, the most rational and reasonable and the most pure. It has the best

possible goal – knowing and sharing intimacy with God. Such intimacy promises the

completion of our knowledge, fulfilment and contentment.

He notes that this witness of Christ in his people is a more effective means of evangelism

than philosophy or miracles. (This is a great lesson for those who feel that if God would

only throw in a few more signs and wonders then we could tip the balance in evangelism

in his favour.)

As we know that every effect expresses its cause. The beautiful and revered

appearance of holy Christians can only come from the beauty of their soul. This

attitude and appearance is often effective in bringing sinners to conversion. Even

though a man be uneducated, if he leads a holy life, his witness will have more

influence with his friends than would an eloquent and learned philosopher. More

even than by demonstration of or talk of miracles. 232

Christian living is moral – therefore not based on lies or untruth.

Lack of Morality does not cause holy living – it destroys it. Christian living has a focus





109

in Christ as its power and cause. If there were inconsistency then Christians would have

spotted it long ago. Yet their evidence is that the more they trust the truth of Christ –

the more they are called and empowered to live a holy life. Christian living is in harmony

with the God of truth as prime mover and cause. God is the prime mover in the spiritual

realm and he moves human intelligence with a desire for truth and not away from it.

Christian living has a focus in Christ as its source.

This source is in strong contrast to all other sources of influence in creation. No other

religion or psychology or philosophy is able to produce such transforming power.

Christianity is marked by the speed at which transformation takes place and the quality

of the Christ-like character that is produced.

Consequently every one must acknowledge that Christ, as God, is the principal

cause of human righteousness, and, as man, He is the one who makes it possible. 233

Christian living has been tested in the heat of persecution.

Christian living has been tested in the heat of persecution and the CAUSE has shown

itself to be superhuman in withstanding the tests. He is not only the source of the

Christian Life – he is its goal. The aim is to be made one with him who out of love for us,

was crucified to effect our salvation and wholeness.

The chief effect of faith in Christ is peace and joy in spirit and soul. The nature of this

peace is a sign that it is from God. It has supernatural power and is not from human

power. This is seen when it is experienced by those who experience pain, persecution or

torture. Non Christians can point to examples of courage, but not in such numbers and

not in such diversity – from little children to elderly saints.

This peace is based in truth. It leads to renouncing the pleasures and wealth of this

world for the discernment and spiritual sensitivity found in following Christ.

The more virtuously a man lives, the more clearly he discerns the truth, and the

more he loves good and hates evil. If Christianity were not true, then Christians

would live in error, and their persistence in adoring Christ as God, would be

criminal.234

The source of peace is Christ and his converting power is released in those who love and

trust him. The exterior evidence of the Christian shows a particular dignity and character

which is acknowledged as being in contrast to those who have no hope, no power and no

God. To illustrate this he gives several historic examples of the impact of holy living and

character.

This character even affects the bodily appearance and can be seen in the eyes and face

of those who have found the peace of Christ as opposed to those who have become

haggard through sin and show that „the wages of sin IS death’ – the effects already

being seen.




110

Christian living is a fruit of the Spirit of God.

What is seen in the Character of the Christian is the character of God, and is therefore a

supernatural creation.

This peace, joy, and freedom of soul cannot come from any natural human

power, weakened as we are by sensuality and ignorance. It must be a

supernatural gift of God, causing us to lift our eyes to the divine light and the

intimacy with God promised to us. We can prove that union with God is the cause

of this peace of soul, if we reason in the following manner. The soul is one, and

all its powers spring from its unity. If the soul is focussed on the activity of one

motivating power, then it cannot give attention to the activity of another. Just as

in intense contemplation the operations of the senses are suspended, and there is

less awareness of great physical pain or pleasure. Humanly speaking it would

seem quite impossible that the intellect should enjoy peace and happiness at

times of intense bodily torture. And, yet, we see this phenomenon in innumerable

martyrs, of both sexes and from every background. 235

It is this fruit of the Spirit which creates fellowship and society – as men and women

give care and rights to one another. Brian Hepplethwaite sees this as far-reaching -

The difference made by the gospel, in its direct and indirect penetration, is

discernible, according to this view, in the centuries of European (now Western)

cultural history. It is seen in respect for and care of the sick and the poor; the

emphasis on labour and responsibility, the recognition of equality, social justice,

universal education, universal franchise, freedom of religion, freedom of the

press, and democracy.236

Christian living’s experience of prayer shows the Christian Faith is true.

The holiest lives are marked by commitment to prayer and Christians have discovered

that Prayer leads to discernment of truth and enlightenment. They discover that prayer

made in the name of Jesus is answered, when what they ask is honouring to him.

Also note that Christians make great requests of God, asking in the name of

Christ crucified and through His merits. If Christ is not divine and they have no

basis for asking in His name, then God would surely point out their mistake and

lead them to the truth. If having been shown the truth, they continue to ask in

Christ’s name, their prayers would not be answered. But the reality is that the

chief prayer of a Christian is for grace to live a Christian life, and for joy and

peace of soul. This prayer, and more beside, are graciously answered in His

name, because He is divine and his word is true.237


236 Brian Hepplethwaite, In Defence of Christianity, Oxford University press, Oxford 2005 page

133



111

Prayer is motivated by God and leads men to the truth of salvation. It therefore centres

in Christ crucified.

A further argument is, that if Christ is not God, it would be blasphemy to believe

and to confess that He is one with the Father and the Holy Spirit, and to pray

pleading His death on our behalf. How could a good God leave Christians in such

blindness, especially when they are the best of mankind and always ready to cut

out any error that may dishonour God’s Majesty? It is absurd to say that God

leaves them in their wrong belief because they are obstinate about it. If this were

the case, why should He hear their blasphemous prayers? In fact why should He

not punish them severely?238

The Scriptures testify that this ONE God is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus

Christ, and that he is the author of Scripture.

The Scriptures provide evidence needing to be taken into account because reading and

meditation on Scriptures are the CAUSES of the Christian life, used by God to effect his

purpose. It is as if God‟s activity and character shine through and the author is known

through the writings.

The truth and authority of Scripture is affirmed by is prophetical content, which

meets the highest criteria.

Now many of the events foretold by the Prophets have come to pass; and the fact

of their fulfilment inspires us with confidence that any that have not yet been

accomplished will eventually be verified. We must, therefore, acknowledge the

Holy Scriptures to be, not a work of human ingenuity, but the revelation of God's

providence towards us. God alone has prescience of the future. Therefore, no

man, however diligent or wise, can order the wars and doings of kings and

princes, and the names and places, and different actions and circumstances of

men in such a way that they actually foreshadow things to come. 239

Why should he appeal to Prophecy? Because it was a test offered by God himself.

Isaiah 41:21-24 ‘Present your case,’ says the Lord. ‘Set forth your arguments,’

says Jacob's King. ‘Bring in your idols to tell us what is going to happen. declare

to us the things to come, tell us what the future holds, so we may know that you

are gods. Do something, whether good or bad, so that we will be dismayed and

filled with fear. But you are less than nothing and your works are utterly

worthless.

Isaiah says God has spoken and predicted the future; other claims to truth fail at this

point. The Bible is 27% prophecy, while the Qur‟an has none. Neither does it feature

strongly in other religions.

He explains that fulfilled prophecy can be publicly checked and is useful evidence. But it


239 TOTC – Pages 107-108


112

needs to meet certain criteria - It must be possible for people to check the details. It

needs to be a clear prediction and clear fulfilment, not fulfilled by those with vested

interests and not written after the event! Fulfilled prophecy has the benefit of showing

not just a First Cause but a God who speaks.

Scripture is also affirmed by its harmony and unity indicating the work of one

mind.

Its quality and language is unique. God uses Scripture to teach, correct, convert and

sustain and the Church Fathers and martyrs are testimony to this The Scriptures have a

track record of bringing illumination and understanding, but also of changing lives in

conversions – something philosophy fails to do. Savonarola notes that he has seen this

in his own preaching. Scriptural truths are affirmed by the harmony and truth of the

external world. Because it is based in truth, Scripture refutes all other philosophies and

religions.

When we take into account the differences of times and circumstances, of

language and of authors, the extraordinary uniformity which exists between the

Old and the New Testaments would not be possible, were they not the work of

one mind. A mind that knows all that has taken place at all times. This uniformity

cannot be explained by pure chance, since there is no discord or lack of harmony

between the two Testaments, but perfect agreement between them, even in the

smallest particulars. What is obscure in one passage is explained in another; and

the Scripture interprets itself. Although those who have not studied the Bible may

be ignorant of this fact, the truth of what I say will be acknowledged by all who

examine Holy Scripture with faith, humility and purity of heart.240

Scripture is affirmed by those whose characters have been morally changed.

They claim a power in the Scriptures, to such an extent that even when persecuted, they

use them in worship and for spiritual support.

Christians would be the first to discern if the Bible were not the work of God.

However, far from denying the divine inspiration of the Scriptures, the Fathers of

the Church have left many volumes extolling its teaching. They have also written

and preached that it is unlawful to alter one iota of the sacred text. Some of them

have even shed their blood, in defence of the divine origin of the Bible. If these

men had not been certain that the Scriptures were the work of God, they would

have definitely not have sacrificed their lives for such a belief. 241

The Scriptures have a track record of bringing illumination and understanding, but also

of changing lives in conversions – something philosophy fails to do. Savonarola notes

that he has seen this in his own preaching.

I also speak from personal experience. At one time (in order to demonstrate the




113

profundity of Holy Scripture to pretentious people242 who possessed only

superficial knowledge) my preaching centred on subtle points of philosophy. I

found that the people who heard me were left daydreaming. But as soon as I

devoted myself to the exposition of the Bible, I found all eyes were riveted upon

me. My audience were so focussed on my words, that they might have been

carved out of stone. I also found that when I put theological questions to one side,

and confined myself to explaining Holy Scripture, my hearers were enlightened

and my preaching resulted in the conversion of men to Christ and to transformed

lives. 243

Scripture affirms God by its truth.

The truth of Scripture has a power to destroy the lies and deceit of the Occult so

prevalent in his day. And because the Scriptures are based in truth then there should be

no fear of science, but rather a desire to study and discern more and more Truth.

Again, truth can never contradict truth. Truth must be in harmony with truth, but

always at war with falsehood. Now, as every science agrees with Holy Scripture,

it is evident that it must contain, not falsehood, but truth. The leaders in every

branch of science have proved that no true science is repugnant to Holy

Scripture. Therefore, Christians are not forbidden to study any science, except

divination and similar superstitions, which are derided by all true scientists..244

The Works of Christ are evidence that HE is divine and ONE with the Father.

Working up to a climax, he introduces the person and work of Christ. Here he affirms

that the works and the power demonstrated in the person of Christ can only be

accounted for by the presence of God working with him.

Then he introduces an argument using the logical analysis of Aristotle as he considers

how it could be that Christ could have such power and influence – and claim to be God.

Let us approach the issue in this way - either Christ is the true God and the First

Cause of all things, or He is not. If He is God, it follows that Christianity is true;

and there is no need for further discussion. If He is not God, He must have been

the proudest man, and the greatest liar that ever lived. He must also have been

exceedingly foolish. For it would have been the height of folly for a man, unaided

by wealth or worldly power, ignorant of philosophy and of rhetoric, to attempt,

merely by virtue of his death, to fight against almighty God, and to usurp the

honour due to God for himself. If He was not God then it would also be a stupid

idea to try to convince learned and powerful men that they should acknowledge

Him as God and join a new religion that should change the whole world. It would

242 Sciolists - amateurs who engage in an activity without serious intentions and who pretend to have knowledge. Of Latin origin meaning a smattering of knowledge.




114

also be folly to inspire his followers with such fervent love for Him, that for his

sake they should be ready to lay down their lives for Him. Could any absurdity

equal such aspirations as these?

If Jesus of Nazareth was not true God, then He was a most foolish and

blasphemous seducer.245

The options open are three – he was either who he said he was, or he was bad, or mad.

Each option is examined and only one found to be worthy of being consistent with the

evidence. Christ is proven to be God by his sanity, goodness and powerful works.

Seen in the power of his works and miraculous results

The power of a crucified Galilean is extraordinary - turning the world upside down by

miracles of changed lives, by fulfilling prophecy, by building a worshipping community of

followers willing to lay down their lives for him.

When we consider the power of Christ, by which He has overcome all gods,

emperors, tyrants, philosophers, heretics, and barbarous nations. When we

remember how His work has been accomplished - not by the sword, nor by

wealth, nor by human wisdom, but by the daily torture and death of His martyrs.

When we think of His divine wisdom which has spread so quickly, enlightening the

world and cleansing it of its errors. When we reflect upon His mercy, which has

powerfully attracted multitudes to His love so, that not only have they renounced

all earthly possessions, but have gladly suffered martyrdom rather than deny one

‘jot or tittle’ of the faith - Can we be hesitant about the truth of Christianity?

What god, or what man, has performed similar wonders? If these marvellous

works have been performed without a miracle; this itself would be the greatest of

miracles! But if they have been worked through miracles, these miracles prove

that Christianity is from God. 246

Seen in the wisdom of his works and effectiveness of his teaching.

Even if Christianity were false, we should still have to recognise the

extraordinary intellectual gifts of its founder, who has been able to lead His

Disciples to sublime holiness of life, by means of subtle lies! But, as there is

no harmony between virtue and deceit, and no agreement between truth

and falsehood, we are forced to confess that Christ is truly wise. He has a

wisdom surpassing that of men. His wisdom is established by the many who

have honoured it, not only in their words and writing, but also by their

works, and even by the shedding of their blood. 247

Seen in the truth of his teaching





115

But, supposing that the Apostles worked no miracles at all, surely the wonder of

wonders would be that a crucified man should be able, just by the words of

twelve poor fishermen, to persuade the entire world to embrace His doctrine.

Therefore, whether the spread of Christianity is due to miracles or not, we cannot

deny that the power of Christ has been beyond any natural power. And, since the

First Cause is that which is more powerful than other causes, so the true God must

be He that is mightier than any other god. Therefore, Jesus Christ, whose Faith

has been victorious over all other forms of religion, must be the true God, and His

teaching must be the true religion.248

Seen in the goodness of his works

Goodness has a way of making its presence known, and Christ has made His

goodness known through the unique graces and blessings He made available to

all people. His coming has driven our error from the world and filled it with

holiness and virtue. He has given to all His followers a quality of joy, which no

earthly thing could give. His supreme goodness is also seen in His readiness to

forgive sinners and His generosity in enriching them with His gifts. So that ‘where

sin abounded, grace did much more abound.’ Those who turn to him from their

sins are enabled to lead a holy life and enjoy true peace and happiness, whereas

those who forsake Him lose all tranquillity of spirit. What further proof do we

require that Christ is the Supreme Good, and the Ultimate End of man? 249

Seen in the grace of his passion

He has wholly given Himself to the human race, to embrace it, and draw it to His

love. But, above all His other attributes, His mercy is shown; because it has led

Him to be crucified out of love for us. His justice also is seen in that He has

Himself made satisfaction for original sin. 250

The Creed is the distilled truth of God’s revelation.

Lorenzo Valla, had applied the techniques of textual criticism to the Creeds and many

were shaken to discover from him that the Apostles had not composed the Apostles‟

Creed. Savonarola reaffirms the Creed as a rational and Biblical formula.

He recognises that God is beyond full human comprehension, so we should note the

limitations of reason when discussing and defining God. Reason has shown how little we

know and that reason itself has limitations. As Peter Kreeft observed -

Reason's last step is the recognition that there are an infinite number of things

which are beyond it.251




251 Peter Kreeft, Christianity for Modern Pagans: Pascal's Pensees Edited, Outlined and Explained , Ignatius Press, 1993 page 238


116

Therefore some aspects of God‟s nature are only known by divine revelation. He has

made such revelation because he wants men to come to salvation and trust in him. The

things revealed are summed up in the Creed.

There is one God, who is Trinity in unity.

He is the Creator and Lord of History

He is saviour and offers salvation from sin, through grace

He promises a future hope of eternal life

The Atonement, Incarnation and Virgin birth are essential in satisfying the

holiness, justice, mercy and love of God, in relation to mankind.

The Commands of the Christian faith demand a holiness that reveals the

holiness and standards of God.

God revealed them to those whom he had redeemed from Egypt. They were not the

means of earning his love and acceptance. He had already demonstrated his love and

grace, and as a response, they were expected to behave in ways which reflected his

ideal.

Deut. 10:12 And now, O Israel, what does the Lord your God ask of you but to

fear the Lord your God, to walk in all his ways, to love him, to serve the Lord

your God with all your heart and with all your soul,

As far as humans are concerned the idea of „righteousness’ is rooted in the purpose of

creation, with humans brought into a living relationship with God – as a part of his

household.

It is within this family unit that the ‘law’ of God forms the house rules, the norm

according to which the behaviour of Israel is to be measured.252

These are Ten Commandments not ten suggestions.

The Decalogue demands love and honour for God

The moral standard of God is an absolute and an ideal. As Lewis Smedes explains -

When we see the Ten Commandments and particularly the first expectation that

we will love God with heart and soul and mind in totality, we recognise our

failure. We as Christians are called not to throw away the commands, but to

affirm that the God who demands is the God who forgives. In fact the gospel of

grace releases us from the guilt of failure and opens a new relationship with God.

The one who pointed out his design for living at Mount Sinai is the same God who

embraces us with his love at Mount Calvary where Jesus died for us. What God

expects of ordinary people is obedience born of gratitude, what God gives

ordinary people is forgiveness and grace.253

252 D B Garlington, New Dictionary of Christian Ethics and Pastoral Theology, Inter Varsity

Press, Downers Grove, Illinois 1995, page 743

253 Lewis Smedes, p 243 Mere Morality, published by Erdmans, Grand Rapids. Reprinted 1996.


117

Savonarola‟s purpose is not to use the Decalogue for exhortation, but to show that the

teaching it contains is rational and reveals a moral and rational God.

The Decalogue demands love and honour for one’s neighbour.

The rational nature of the Decalogue is seen in the way many nations have adopted it as

the basis for their laws and moral assumptions. Dr John Warwick Montgomery has shown

how the European Convention on Human Rights has its foundation in the Judeo-Christian

ethical demands for love of one‟s neighbour. These include impartiality of any tribunal, a

fair hearing, a speedy trial, confrontation of witnesses, the just and the unjust stand

equally before the court; all races, both sexes, all conditions, are treated equally. There

are basic human rights of right to life, right to family life, a right not to be subjected to

inhuman or degrading treatment, punishment and torture, freedom of thought,

conscience, religion, expression, assembly, association, movement. Social and economic

rights in general; the right to work and fair remuneration, right to protection of honour

and personal reputation, right to leisure time, and right asylum.

Its demands cannot be met without supernatural grace.

We must not think that these commandments mean that to love God and our

neighbour from natural virtue or inclination, is sufficient to gain salvation. Our

love must come from supernatural grace, which we should prepare ourselves to

receive. 254

It is the basis for the moral teaching of the Church

In addition to the Decalogue providing a moral framework for society, it also provides a

basis for the moral teaching of the Church in the form of an Absolute Moral Law. Norman

Geisler says that the Absolute Moral Law is –

A Universal duty that is universally binding on all men, at all times and in all

places. This moral law is not above God, but given by God. It is God’s good

nature which is the moral standard.255

Savonarola says –

Surely nothing can be conceived as more reasonable than these two

commandments. On them depend all other laws, both human and divine.

Therefore Christians regard everything they command or imply, or results from

them, as sacred and unbreakable. Any attack as on them as false or wrong is

clearly impious and of the devil.256

It underlies the judicial law of the Church

From these universal laws are deduced, (either by conclusion or by specially

formulated axioms), all particular laws. The particular laws, derived from the


255 Norman L Geisler, Christian Ethics – Options and Issues, Baker Book House in 1990.



118

Divine Law, are called Canonical Laws. Those deduced from natural law are

termed Civil Laws. The laity are governed by Civil, and the clergy by Canonical

Law. There is no opposition between the Divine and the natural law. But, as grace

perfects nature, the Divine Law perfects the natural law; and all that relates to

the Natural law relates, likewise, to the Divine Law.257

The Ceremonies and Sacraments of the Church are instituted by Christ to match

the needs of mankind.

Primary and Secondary Truths. Before examining his teaching on the Ceremonies of

the Church it is important to recognise the difference between what we may call Primary

and Secondary Christian Truths. The Primary Truths, which Christians hold as non-

negotiable, are those defined in the Nicene Creed, along with a recognition of the

Authority of Scripture, and a Personal Relationship with Christ as Saviour and Lord. The

Secondary Truths are those which are held in particular traditions of Christianity. They

consist of areas outside of the Primary Truths and are open to disagreement and

variation in interpretation. These occupy a very small proportion of the whole work and

relate to the Roman Catholic practises of his day. These include such issues as the

authority of the Pope, the number of the sacraments, the use of images in worship, etc.

Savonarola may have included these references to make his writing more acceptable to

the prelates of his day. However as they are clearly Secondary Truths compared with his

major Apologetic themes, I have given them no further comment.

They represent Christ

They are composed of external signs and of words, which represent Christ, the

Word of the Eternal Father, who was united to human nature.258

They are a means of receiving his grace, but not the source of grace.

And, since none can be saved without grace, we can truly say, that these

sacraments are Christ's instruments for granting grace. We do not mean, that the

sacrament’s power is able to produce the final effect of grace. We speak in the

sense used by philosophers, when they say that man is created of man and of the

sun's heat; not meaning that either human or solar power is capable of producing

the intellectual soul of man.

In the same way, the sacraments are not the source of grace. Grace does not

come from either the sacrament’s own innate virtue, not by power acquired from

the actions of Christ. Grace comes from God alone; but the sacraments open up

the soul to receive His grace. 259



259 TOTC – Pages 156-157


119

They are Christ’s means of ordering his Church

They are Christ’s means of being present with his people – the body of

Christ.

They match the needs of the Christian and Christian community

Savonarola presents seven sacraments as matching the needs of physical life – from

birth to development , growth, and eventual maturity.

So the vegetative life possesses powers of generation, of growth, and of nutrition.

In the animal kingdom, sickness may attack this new life, but nature provides

suitable remedies. And as new life cannot occur without a parent, some life giving

power must exist in the world. Sacraments in the spiritual life, correspond to the

way these physical needs are met. 260

These sacraments are, Baptism, Confirmation, Holy Communion, Penance, Extreme

Unction,261 Holy Orders, and Matrimony

Christ has ordained seven sacraments to be the means of nurturing and ruling the

spiritual life. We see, then, how wisely, and how advisedly, Christ has instituted

seven Sacraments in His Church.262

His Christian Worldview and His Analysis of Alternative Worldviews

The Christian Worldview is the only rational Worldview, because

Christianity is Uniquely True.

Just as Savonarola was ahead of his time in formulating an holistic Apologetic, and in

clearly defining the purpose of Apologetics – before the word Apologetics had been

coined to describe this enterprise. So he is much ahead of his time in using Worldviews

as part of his Apologetics. It was not until 1868 that the term Weltanschauung – a

Worldview, was first used in German, from Welt world and Anschauung view. By

examining the other Worldviews he shows Christianity to be the only one that has real

integrity and is therefore the true Faith.

What is a Worldview?

Savonarola recognised that a Worldview is a set of basic presuppositions, which people

hold about the make up of their world. He saw this as deeper than the study of world

religions, because it involves a person‟s core beliefs, which in turn informs their religion,

their doctrines and their behaviour. It is a way a person views or interprets all of reality.


261 Anointing with Oil. James 5:14 - Is any one of you sick? He should call the elders of the church

to pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord.



120

James Sire, in The Universe Next Door 263 has proposed seven basic questions as the

means of analysing and evaluating differing Worldviews. They are –

1. What is prime reality? What is the really real? Is there a god?

2. What is the nature of the external reality? Is there a reality outside of our mind?

Is it matter or spirit? Is it real or illusion? Was it created?

3. What is a human being? A machine or an evolved animal or a god or a created

being?

4. What happens at death? Reincarnation? Or resurrection? Or cease to exist?

5. Is knowledge possible? And how can one know? Is there absolute truth? Can one

know truth? (If someone has a Worldview that knowledge is not possible then

they have no basis for arguing such a belief!)

6. How do we know what is right and wrong?

7. What is the meaning of human history? For Christianity it is linear and is going

somewhere – it has a goal. But for the Hindu it is cyclical and based in

reincarnation.

Worldviews can be evaluated by examining how well they meet the criteria of -

Having internal consistency and no contradictions.

Having values and meaning that can be lived out in everyday life

Having external comprehensiveness in that it accounts for all the facts.

Having correspondence –all the facts fit together in a way that makes sense.

The Christian Worldview.

The Christian Worldview has been Savonarola‟s whole focus up to this point. He has tried

to show that it is the only true Worldview because it explains the truth about God,

creation, mankind and salvation. He has shown God is one, transcendent and immanent

– separate from but involved with the universe.

Islam and Judaism also believe in a personal God who can intervene in his universe. But

Savonarola will explain the major differences between them and Christianity are, first,

they teach man is saved and put in right relationship with God by his own efforts.

Christianity teaches man can only be saved by God.

Ephes. 2:8-9 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not

from yourselves, it is the gift of God - not by works, so that no-one can boast.

Secondly they both have misrepresented Jesus Christ by misinterpreting the clear

evidence concerning his person, and by rejecting him as Saviour.

263 James Sire, The Universe Next Door, Inter Varsity Press-Academic, Downers Grove, 2004


121

His review of the Christian Worldview has demonstrated the consistency of belief in God

as Trinity, Man as a creation with a purpose in life, but in need of salvation and Christ as

God‟s appointed Saviour. Having been saved a man becomes a new creation with a new

hope. In this life there is the project of sanctification in the life of the Spirit and in the

fellowship of the Church, and after death there is the promise of resurrection and

glorious intimacy with God. This Worldview answers the main questions we may have

about life and meaning and truth.

Human Philosophies fail to explain the purpose of life or the true nature

of man.

Secular philosophies are defective beliefs because they provide no purpose for life here

or hereafter. They are confused about the nature of man. They are confused about

creation. They are confused about how we know and the theory of knowledge. They are

confused about the purpose and nature of worship.

Again, the heathen schools of philosophy, besides their many grave errors, had

nothing definite or certain to say about the nature of divine worship. Their ideas

concerning divine providence are wild imagination. So, far from being profitable

for man's salvation or honouring to religion, their teaching was merely a source of

confusion for mankind. Nevertheless, we must not despise the valuable part of

the old philosophy, but rather make use of it ourselves. Even though it is not

sufficient to bring us to salvation, it is often of great assistance to us in refuting

the enemies of the Faith.264

Astrology is futile, irrational and false.

Astrology was everywhere and many thought human life was determined by the stars.

The Church bought into this belief and many major decisions were made on the basis of

astrological predictions. They took their authority for doing this by noting that the

watching astrologers, the magi, sensed a prediction of the start of a new era with a new

ruler emerging from Judea, and following a star they found Christ.

But Savonarola makes the following judgment. The idea that the stars can govern

human affairs has led some to worship them as gods. But the stars are not the cause of

the actions a man performs, because minds are free and are not controlled by the stars.

The stars do not control man‟s temperament, because they are non-intelligent objects. If

non-intelligent objects controlled man the result would be actions that are simply

instinctive. But this is not the case when we see how people are so varied in their actions

and motives; therefore their actions are voluntary and not controlled.

People are capable of making mistakes because their actions are free and not controlled.

Control would lead to repetitive actions and uniformity whereas we see the variety and



122

difference in human actions and choices.

If a man were controlled then he would not be morally responsible. Men are influenced

by their environment and events but can still resist because they are free and have free

will. So stars are ineffective as a control because they cannot overcome free will.

Worship of the stars or of the life force in the universe is empty and dangerous. Our

knowledge of the stars is too limited and therefore we have no basis for attributing

particular powers to them. Such belief is irrational and leads us away from the truth

about God.

Stars do not foretell future events. Predictions of the future would be too general to be

of particular use and too many variables exist for any prediction to be certain.

Polytheistic Religions are evil and they usurp the honour due to God.

The Scriptures teach that the powers behind idols and other gods are evil spirits.265 They

are evil because they usurp the honour due to God. They are evil because they

encourage evil actions. They are evil because they do not lead men to salvation. They

are evil because they claim powers only available to God. They are evil because they

have sometimes encouraged sexual immorality. They are evil because they have

sometimes encouraged the sacrifice of the innocents. They are evil because they are

sometimes cruel – even allowing their own children to be mutilated or killed.

Judaism is condemned by its own Scriptures for rejecting the Messiah

In evaluating the Worldview of Judaism, he notes that this is not the religion of the Old

Testament Jews. After the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple, then the

prophecy of Hosea was fulfilled. Hosea 3:4 For the Israelites will live for many days

without king or prince, without sacrifice or sacred stones, without ephod or idol. There

was no king or government till 1948, no temple, no priesthood, no sacrifice. The Jews

had a complete change of religion, which is unique in the history of the world – and

almost more remarkable – they would cease from their most consistent sin – they would

no more be involved with idolatry.

Savonarola chooses to examine Judaism on the basis of their own Scriptures. Having no

sacrificial system anymore, they became people of the book. His purpose is not to judge

and dismiss Judaism, but to prove that Jesus is the Messiah.

Now, all their hope is centred on the Messiah, for whose coming they still look. If

we are able to prove to them that the Messiah has already come, and is Jesus

265 1 Cor. 10:20-21 the sacrifices of pagans are offered to demons, not to God, and I do not want you to be participants with demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons too; you cannot have a part in both the Lord's table and the table of demons.


123

Christ our Saviour, then they cannot deny that our religion is of God, and that

they are in error.

We have promised in this Book not to appeal to the witness of any authority, but

to reason alone. But here our reasoning is based on the authority in which our

adversaries believe, because this is most convincing for them, and most

profitable to other unbelievers.

Therefore, on the authority of the Prophets, we shall prove that Jesus Christ of

Nazareth, crucified by the Jews, is the Messiah of the Patriarchs and Prophets,

and that He was, in many ways, foretold and foreshadowed in Holy Scripture.266

His first assertion is that Jesus is the Messiah. God promised a Messiah through the

prophecy of Moses, “The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from

among your own brothers. You must listen to him. For this is what you asked of the Lord

your God” (Deut. 18:15-16)

So It is certain, and acknowledged by all the Jews, that the details concerning the

Messiah were foretold in the Mosaic Law, in the Psalms, and in the Prophets. That

is to say, there are many predictions concerning His race, place of birth, the time

of His coming, His life and teaching, His works, and many other things unique to

the Messiah. It is also known, throughout the world, that the Old Testament,

interpreted by Christian doctors, shows that all that is written of the Messiah is

true of Jesus of Nazareth. In fact, so aptly do the prophecies of the Old

Testament apply to Christ and to His Church, that if the Jews were not so loud in

proclaiming the antiquity of Moses and the Prophets, their predictions might be

taken as forgeries created by Christians.267

The Scriptures give detailed prophetic promises, which Jesus fully fulfilled. The

question is, „If Jesus is not the Messiah – then why did God not stop him causing such

confusion by him matching the prophecies so perfectly?‟ If he was not the Messiah then

God allowed Christians to be deluded and the Jews would reject any other messiah who

might come because none could more perfectly fulfil the prophecies than Jesus.

The Scriptures give an exact time for his coming – and that is when Jesus

appeared. If he is not the Messiah then it is now too late for any other messiah to fulfil

the prophecy of Daniel which states the time of his coming. Savonarola gives an

exegesis of Daniel 9, which predicts a decree to rebuild Jerusalem, followed by units of

sabbatical years after which the Messiah will come. He would be „cut off’ meaning

„rejected‟ or „killed‟. Then Jerusalem and the Temple would be destroyed again.

These things happened as described. The Jews had been taken into exile and Daniel was

writing in exile in Babylon. After the Persians had conquered the Babylonian empire they

ruled over lands, which included Israel. In 444 BC the Persian king Artaxerxes gave

permission to the Jews to rebuild Jerusalem, which was still in ruins after having been




124

destroyed earlier by the Babylonians. There had been previous decrees allowing the Jews

to take a group back to Israel and to rebuild the Temple, but the city lay in ruins. The

Jews rebuilt the Temple and the city of Jerusalem. About 33 AD Jesus entered Jerusalem

as the Messiah who had been promised by this prophecy. The crowds welcomed him,

but within the week the people had turned and he was cut off and crucified by the

Romans. About 70 AD the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple. The Temple

was not rebuilt and the system of sacrifices and the Jewish Priesthood was lost.

Savonarola does not give the method of calculation in this prophecy, but he is aware

that some ancient Rabbis had made the calculation and had no answer as to why the

Messiah could not be Jesus. It is interesting to note they also view Daniel 9 as giving a

date for the arrival of the Messiah. Maimonides (Rabbi Moses Ben Maimon) says:

Daniel has elucidated to us the knowledge of the end times. However, since they

are secret, the wise [rabbis] have barred the calculation of the days of Messiah’s

coming so that the untutored populace will not be led astray when they see that

the End Times have already come but there is no sign of the Messiah. 268

Today there are some slight variations in the method of calculation, but most

commentators are agreed that an actual date is prophesied by Daniel, which matches

the coming of Jesus. One common form of the calculation sees the prophecy in three

parts: The „7 sevens‟ in Daniel 9:25. The „62 sevens‟ in Daniel 9:25. The 70th „seven‟ in

Daniel 9:27.

The 7 and 62 of the first two periods are added together to make 69. These are added

together because it is said that at the end of this period the Messiah would appear.

These „sevens‟ are taken as seven years, not days, weeks or months. (There is a

previous reference to a period of seventy years in verse 2).

These 69 sevens (69x7 = 483) equate to 483 years; from the decree to rebuild

Jerusalem to the time the Messiah comes to Jerusalem. But the years are not periods of

365 days as in modern calendars, but based on the lunar calendar used at the time. This

had twelve months each with 30 days, making a year 360 days.

So the 483 years are multiplied by 360 days, giving a total of 173,880 days. These

173,880 days are then related to our calendar of 365.25 days to a year. This enables us

to use our calendar to see when the prophecy was fulfilled. 173,880 days divided by

365.25 gives 476 (solar) years. The beginning of the 476 years is the decree given by

Artaxerxes to Nehemiah, to rebuild Jerusalem. Nehemiah 2:1 In the month of Nisan, in

the twentieth year of King Artaxerxes'. This would be Nissan 1, 444 BC, which is March

5, 444 B.C. in our calendar system. The first year would run from 444 to 443, so we take

the 443 years BC from the 476 and these leaves 33 years AD. So 33 AD would be the

time when Jesus rode into Jerusalem on a donkey, proclaiming himself as king as

prophesied in Zechariah. Some scholars have claimed that there are exactly 173,880

days from March 5, 444 BC to April 6, 33 AD – the date of Palm Sunday.

Zech. 9:9 Rejoice greatly, O Daughter of Zion! Shout, Daughter of Jerusalem!

See, your king comes to you, righteous and having salvation, gentle and riding on

a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey.

268 Igeret Teiman, Chapter 3 page 24


125

The Scriptures state that the Messiah would die (be cut off) and that his death

would coincide with the end of the sacrificial system and the destruction of the

Temple.

His Apostles followed Him, and they taught the Jews that the legal sacrifices and

ceremonies need no longer be observed. As the reality had come, it was right

that the things that foretold His coming should come to an end.269

The Jews describe the present time as an exile as they continue to wait for the

Messiah. The first exile was a punishment for idolatry. Savonarola suggests that the

present sufferings of the Jewish people must be for a sin more serious than idolatry and

he identifies this sin as the rejection of Jesus – the true Messiah. This has left Judaism

spiritually bankrupt with no further prophets or miraculous signs. In contrast, the Church

shows the signs of the Holy Spirit so lacking in Judaism.

The gift of prophecy has dried up and is not found among them. God does not

now show that they are his people with any special sign, as He did in the past. On

the other hand, the Church of the Gentiles shows signs of holiness of life, true

religion, and the wonderful works of Christ and of His saints. 270

His conclusion is - we are driven to conclude that, either God has deceived us or Jesus

Christ is the Messiah.271

Christian Heresies and Cults are often immoral and damage the unity of

the Church by rejecting the teaching of the Scriptures and the Church

God‟s purpose is unity and peace, centred in truth. Christ delegated authority to Peter

and the Apostles as the focus of unity and authority for teaching. Heresy rejects the

authority, the teaching, and the unity of the Church. Many heretics reject the Scriptures

and some lead immoral lives. Heresies are often irrational and their teachings

contradictory.

Islam offers no certain salvation because it rejects the divinity of Christ

and his atonement.

Please note the DISCLAIMER I have published at the start of my edition of the Triumph

of the Cross. As I state elsewhere, some of the arguments Savonarola uses against

Islam are what we today would regard as unacceptable.





126

He observes that the Qur‟an is confused and contradictory. It accepts Christ but rejects

his divinity. He believes it supports immoral actions and that the Prophet did not perform

miracles but spread his religion by violence. The ultimate goal of Islam is not intimacy

with God, but material pleasures. It offers no certain salvation and its growth in numbers

of followers is not a proof of its truth.

Conclusion.

His conclusions are carefully drawn to build one on the other to take the reader on to a

response of faith and not just to go away with one or two notions to muse upon. This is

Apologetics with a purpose – as set out right at the start of the article. The steps of the

conclusion are –

Christianity is Reasonable and has a Solid Foundation

Other Worldviews do not have such Solid Foundation272

Compare it with the reasonings and philosophy of any other option on offer – it is

superior.

Where else shall we find a religion established on such solid grounds of reason as

Christianity? Philosophers ignore the true destiny of human life. Astrology is a

web of superstition. Idolatry contains neither morality nor truth. Judaism is

refuted by its own prophets of old, and by the present captivity of its followers.

The discord between heretics, and the death of their sects, is a strong proof that

they are in error. Islam is an outrage against every principle of philosophy.

Christianity alone is resplendent with natural and supernatural reason and is

adorned by holiness, wisdom, miracles, and wondrous deeds. 273

It would be unreasonable not to act on the evidence and commit to

Christ

So if reason has brought us this far, it would be unreasonable not to act on the findings

and to commit to Christ and to call on his grace. This course of action is required,

because to not do so will have implications, and to do so will be to experience the truth

and grace of Christ.

Christianity alone is resplendent with natural and supernatural reason and is

adorned by holiness, wisdom, miracles, and wondrous deeds. Consequently, can

any intelligent man hold back from a wholehearted acceptance of the Faith of

Christ? Can any one fail to see the rashness and stupidity of those who reject a

religion which has been blessed by God and preserved by Him through centuries

of persecution, and consecrated by the blood of innumerable martyrs?



127

Surely, every man of sound judgment acknowledges Christianity is true. Every

man must believe that another life exists, into which we all must pass and that

each one of us must stand before the awe inspiring Judge. He will place on His

left hand the wicked condemned to eternal punishment, and, on His right, the

good who will enter into everlasting bliss. In unutterable glory they shall see and

enjoy fellowship with God the Trinity. They shall rejoice in the grace of our all-

conquering and triumphant Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, to whom be power,

and divinity, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, for ever and ever. AMEN.274

17 Evaluation of his Apologetic – does he conform to the criteria he set

himself?

I define the Apologetic task (as does Savonarola) in the words of Peter –

1 Peter 3:15 But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to

give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason (APOLOGIA) for the

hope that you have.

Tellingly, Savonarola leaves off - But do this with gentleness and respect.

(and leaves out the next verse) 16 keeping a clear conscience, so that those who

speak maliciously against your good behaviour in Christ may be ashamed of their

slander.

This definition has three distinct aspects.

First to commend Christ by our way of life – living under his direction and

Lordship.

Second there should be a prepared and reasoned explanation for the hope we

have in Christ.

Third there should be a means of expressing our faith which is marked by

gentleness and respect for those to whom we are called to witness.

Quite naturally this task has a cultural setting and needs to be related to the

understanding of the hearer, otherwise it is not apologetic, but simply a collection of

words – without communication. As our pattern in the task we have not only the Apostle

Paul in his witness to the Athenians275, but the example of Christ himself – who is the

WORD of God – the communication from heaven.

He lived under the direction and Lordship of Christ


275 Acts 17


128

Known as a man of prayer and devotion, his love of Christ shines through his writings.

He was ahead of the Reformers in his grasp of the biblical understanding of justification.

We must regenerate the Church ... God remits the sins of men, and justifies them

by his mercy. There are as many compassions in heaven as there are justified

men upon earth; for none are saved by their own works. No man can boast of

himself; and if, in the presence of God, we could ask all these justified sinners --

Have you been saved by your own strength? - all would reply as with one voice,

'Not unto us, O Lord! not unto us; but to thy name be the glory!' -- Therefore, O

God, do I seek thy mercy, and I bring not unto thee my own righteousness; but

when by thy grace thou justifies one, then thy righteousness belongs unto me;

for grace is the righteousness of God. -- O God, save me by thy righteousness,

that is to say, in thy Son, who alone among men was found without sin! 276

His argument and schema have been evaluated in this thesis.

His gentleness and respect.

There is tenderness and love for his people and the city of Florence and his judgement is

reserved for those who are a threat to the „flock of Christ‟. Much of what he says is of

the flavour of Christ who condemned the Pharisees.

Matthew 23:15 ‘Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites!

You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one,

you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are.

There is evidence of his courage and gentleness in the face of torture, but many of the

comments on his character come from his opponents. With the distance of time we are

probably best to note the tone of his writing, compared with other more strident

Christians of his day, and also to note that like Jesus, ‘the common people heard him

gladly’ 277

I believe that in his culture he was an effective Apologist and fulfilled the criteria of the

Apologetic task according to the Apostle Peter.

People are searching for something real and authentic. Christianity and the Christian

Worldview offer the total truth this generation so desperately craves. But they will not

take us seriously unless our churches, organisations, and workplaces demonstrate an

authentic way of life, and exhibit the character of God in all our relationships and modes

of living.

Personal Bias

I admit that I approach Savonarola from the position of a mainstream orthodox

276 Quoted by J. H. Merle D'Aubigne in History of the Reformation. Vol. 1, American Tract

Society, New York, 1848, Pages 96-97

277 Mark 12:37


129

Protestant. I am also a member of the leadership team of the Maranatha Community.278

In the Community we declare our allegiance to the whole Body of Christ. We are drawn

from all the Christian traditions (including Catholic and Orthodoxy) and affirm the

central, prime truths that Christians hold as non-negotiable – The Nicene Creed,

Authority of Scripture, and a Personal Relationship with Christ as Saviour and Lord.

This means that I delight in the clarity of Savonarola‟s presentation of the prime truths

of the gospel and appreciate the integrated argument of his Apologetics. I have gained

enormously from his writings and come to appreciate some of the helpful insights of the

Roman Catholic teaching and spirituality.

Criticisms and evaluation

Though I regard Savonarola as a kind of hero I hope that this does not make me too

uncritical in my evaluation of him and his ministry. He reveals some weaknesses that I

would want to raise and, in some instances, take issue with them.

There are those who have pointed out a flaw in his character and recount a story that

under intense torture he recanted his teaching against the corruption of the Church.

These writers then tell us that when released from torture he refused to recant and was

distressed that he should have given way to his tormentors. My response is to say that

this is of little significance. His character was displayed publicly throughout his life and in

his death. All affirm that he was a man of faith, devotion, courage and dignity. He may

have given way under torture, but we cannot be sure when the only eyewitnesses were

those who were biased in their reporting.

My concerns are related to his writings and particularly this work, The Triumph of the

Cross. I find some of his arguments in support of the Sacrament of Penance and other

Roman Catholic ceremonies, are contrived and do not bear the clarity and conviction of

his other propositions. It would seem that these were included as a sop to the Church of

his day with its preoccupation with ceremonial and sacerdotal ministry.

Likewise his defence of Images of the Saints and Virgin and the fact that the quality of

veneration offered to them is in a category different from the worship offered to God, is

unconvincing.

We give to the cross and crucifix the worship of latria279, which is the worship that

we pay to God. We honour an image of the Virgin Mary with an inferior honour,

yet with greater honour than that which we give to representations of the other

saints. We honour the saints as the blessed friends of God. We erect their images

in order to recall them to our memory, to inspire ourselves to virtue by their

example, and to raise our hearts in prayer to God, through their intercession.280

The forensic division of worship into particular categories comes from the scholastic

tradition of the Church and does not relate easily to reality. For example, a person

278 http://www.maranathacommunity.org.uk

279 Latria - The highest kind of worship offered to God alone - distinguished by Roman Catholics

from dulia - the inferior worship paid to saints.



130

offering veneration to a statue of the Virgin is probably so intent on what they are doing

that they cannot be expected to analyse the quality of their worship to make sure that it

falls into the right category. If it were of the wrong quality, it would fall into idolatry. At

no point does he relate this issue simply to the mandate of the Ten Commandments –

that there should be no graven images.

There is also the concern, which I have raised in my disclaimer, with regard to Islam and

Judaism. Some of his remarks are strident and in today‟s culture, they are offensive.

Something can be said in mitigation when one remembers that he was writing at a time

when the major pastime was hearing scholars and philosophers publicly argue and

verbally abuse each other. However, as I mention in the disclaimer, it falls short of the

admonition of St Peter that we should defend the faith, „But do this with gentleness and

respect.‟

Lastly, in terms of criticism I would mention a weakness rather than a fault. I believe

that this particular book, The Triumph of the Cross, would be much clearer and the

arguments more explicit if he had defined his terms. Two clear examples are his use of

the words, „form’ and ‘essence’, which he uses as fundamental terms in his arguments.

He takes the time to criticise Plato‟s use of ‘form’, to comment on Aristotle‟s definition of

„form’, but does not define the meaning he intends when he himself relies on „form’ for

his argument.

Nevertheless, these criticisms are completely overshadowed by the glory of his

contribution to our understanding of our Faith. Over the past few years I have grown to

appreciate Savonarola and to bless God for the inspiration he has spoken into my life. It

would have been wonderful to hear him preach to thousands in the packed Duomo in

Florence. It would have been a joy to see many converted to Christ through his

exposition of the gospel.

One reason for him writing The Triumph of the Cross was „to strengthen the faith of

believers and to expose the irrationality of non-believers’ arguments so that simple and

uneducated people are released from the deception played on them’.281 In his writings,

he has done this for me.

He has a beautifully crafted argument which leads to Christ and not just to a first cause.

He is brave in appealing to Christian Character as an evidence at a time of corruption in

the Church. He himself was known for his godly life and people were able to tell the real

followers of the Man of Nazareth, when they came across one. He appeals to what

people know instinctively about what is Christ-like and what is not.

H D Macdonald says - The Bible does not set about to prove God and claim him as the

first cause. 282 Some Apologetics take us to a first cause only; Savonarola takes us to the

Cross of Christ to meet the very Son of God as Saviour and Lord.

Today, some still say that the arguments of Aquinas are weak and useless, while others

say that together they become more convincing – as if by collecting several broken

planks a bridge may be constructed which would have been impossible with only one

broken plank. The key issue is that they are ALL broken. But are they? Colin Brown

suggests that there may be fresh insights to come from Aquinas. 283


282 H D Macdonald, I and He, London, 1967. Page 118

283 Brown, Colin, Philosophy And The Christian Faith, Tyndale Press, London 1969, Page 17ff


131

However Savonarola is more sophisticated and does not rely on the Five Ways. His

argument is that there is evidence in Scripture, the Christian Community and the Cross

of Christ which requires explanation and the only explanation that will fit is that Christ is

God – the God of Aquinas and the first cause of Aristotle.

18 Evaluation of his Apologetic – is my proposition established?

Proposition – Savonarola’s Apologetic Schema and Analysis of Worldviews are

the key to effective 21st Century Apologetics.

His method is to show that Apologetics is an integrated whole. There are many planks

that can be used to bridge the gap between certainty and uncertainty about God. The

planks are not broken, but they are individually too short to bridge the gap. But together

they can be built into a robust bridge that proves the rationality of faith. This is achieved

when like Savonarola, we avoid compartmentalism in Apologetics.

Parallels between the 15th and 21st Centuries.

In the 21st Century we have many conflicting Worldviews offering an explanation and

purpose for living. We also have particular evils and problems that make life less than we

would hope it could be. Amazingly these closely parallel the issues of Savonarola‟s day,

which he addressed with clarity and concern. Therefore the things he had to say are

relevant and critically important for us today.

Some of the labels or names may have changed but the issues are the same. We have a

plague but now it is called HIV/Aids. We have a Church that has corrupted the gospel

and become lost in pluralism and power politics.284 We live in societies where life is

cheap and violence is rife. We have excesses of wealth and materialism. We have

corruption in politics. We have abject poverty and famine. We have fascination with New

Age religions. We have secular Atheistic Humanism and philosophy. We have

homosexual „gay rights‟ tearing apart whole Christian communions.285 Each issue is

284 Only 19% of people claiming to be Christians believe the religion they practice is the only true religion. Sadly, the majority of people who claim to be Christian don‟t accept the biblical definition of Christianity. (U.S. News and World Report, 2002 poll)

285 Within the mother Church of England.. a survey in 2002 found that a third of the Church's clergy doubted or disbelieved in the physical resurrection and only half were convinced of the truth of the virgin birth. And, as the recent history of North American Anglicanism all too clearly

demonstrates, once the creeds have been emptied of shared meaning, biblical morality shares a similar fate.

This process is already well under way in England. In July 2005 the English House of Bishops gave their support to the British Government's legislation creating Civil Partnerships which was explicitly designed for those in same gender sexual relationships and gave such partnerships a legal status virtually indistinguishable from marriage. Clergy of the Church of England were allowed to enter

such partnerships on the rather improbable, and certainly unenforceable, condition of abstinence. Dr John Richardson speaking at the Global Anglican Future Conference, Jerusalem, July 2008


132

addressed in the Triumph of the Cross – even to the question of the role of Islam.286

His Analysis of Worldviews in the context of 21st Century

Though the Worldviews held today seem to be as numerous as the individuals who make

up the world‟s population, yet there are just a few fundamental frameworks through

which the world is viewed.

Atheism – the assumption that there is no God, underpins both the politics of Marxism

and Secular Humanism. It also is the foundational belief of existentialism.

Pantheism – the assumption that Universe is God. This is found in Hinduism, Buddhism,

Christian Science, and New Age religions. It believes not that God created the universe,

but that God is the universe. Most Pantheists believe in reincarnation with the body

going through various cycles.

Deism – the assumption that God created the universe, but he does not intervene. The

Laws of Nature cannot be broken. God does not answer prayer and is distant.

Finite Godism - God is limited by human freedom and sin. This view arises in part from

the problem of Theodicy. How can a good God not intervene and solve the problem of

evil? And isn‟t this a world of God‟s creation? – if so, then it must be the best of all

possible worlds, but it does not look like it.

Polytheism - is the belief that there are many gods. This is held in Hinduism, but also

among Mormons who teach that there are gods for each planet. It is also found in the

New Age Worldview and comes in many forms. It has strong links with modern

psychology and it is the dominant Worldview in the United Nations. It is behind women‟s

rights, gay rights and political correctness. It is the core Worldview in films like Star

Wars with its blessing – „May the force be with you’. The practises of the New Age

Movement include astrology, Para-psychology, ESP and occultic rites

Savonarola‟s answers still are effective in refuting these Worldviews. He shows their

inner contradictions and he addresses them on the issue of Truth. But he also makes a

strong argument concerning the breakdown of morality saying that when truth goes,

moral values disintegrate.

We have great new cities and inspiring architecture. We have an explosion of

information, communication and cultural expression. But so often what is developed is

286 Why did we have to wait for Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali, born and raised in Muslim Pakistan, to remind us that, as he put it, 'the beliefs, values and virtues of Great Britain have been formed by the Christian faith'? Just as important, why did we have to wait for him to urge us to do something about restoring that faith before we either sink into a yelling chaos of knives, fists and boots, or swoon into the strong, implacable arms of Islam? Most of our homegrown prelates are more

interested in homosexuality or in spreading doubt about the gospel or urging the adoption of Sharia law. Peter Hitchens, writing in The Daily Mail, London, 31 May 2008.


133

used for the destruction of morality. Pornography, drugs and gay rights dominate the

media, education, religion and politics – just as in his day. State violence still destroys

the lives of many and terrorism claims lives on a daily basis.

The importance of Savonarola for us is that he enables us to answer the questions that

are raised by the competing voices and forces that claim a hearing in our day. He speaks

words that re-affirm our faith. He exposes the futility of the New Age and Post Modern

ideas. He confounds the arguments of the Secular Atheist. And he teaches us how to

present an integrated apologetic for our faith. Savonarola meets his objectives and

restores confidence for the believer.

There is a battle in which we are involved, even if we are not aware of it. The battle is a

real Spiritual Warfare in which we are to knock down the Devil‟s strongholds in the

minds of people, where proud and illusory arguments stop people coming to know God.

2 Corinthians 10:4- 5. New Living Translation: We use God’s mighty weapons, not mere

worldly weapons, to knock down the Devil’s strongholds. With these weapons we

break down every proud argument that keeps people from knowing God. With

these weapons we conquer their rebellious ideas, and we teach them to obey Christ.

His, is not one among several apologetic tools - but the key to unifying them all.

Several apologists are now recognising that the compartmentalism of different apologetic

disciplines is weakening effective argument. They also note that specialisation in the use

of one or two apologetic tools is not satisfactory. Just listing the variety of possible

apologetic tools does not instil confident in the believer. So most Christians fall back on

Testimonial Apologetics – and personal testimony is absolutely valid. They would be less

confident handling the tools of Philosophical Apologetics, Historical Apologetics, Scientific

Apologetics, Legal Apologetics and Moral Apologetics, as a means of defending their

faith.

We earlier noted how Norman Geisler has responded to this situation by offering what he

describes as Interdisciplinary Apologetics. And noted how Phil Fernandes developed

what he calls Cumulative Apologetics. Geisler‟s approach is seen worked out in his

book, Why I am a Christian. 287 In this volume he invites 16 leading Apologists 288 to

each provide the apologetic argument from their area of specialism. Their willingness to

share in this way reflects their awareness of the need for a fresh and better form of

apologetic presentation. From the quantity of evidence they claim „the chances of

Christianity being false are so low that only a fool can reject the evidence that is

available. Quoting Romans chapter one, Fernandes concludes that ‘to go against this

evidence is a leap in the dark and a suppression of the light’.

Romans 1:18-22 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the

godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness,

287 Norman L Geisler and Paul K Hoffman, Why I am a Christian, leading thinkers explain why they believe, Baker Book House in 2006.

288 Francis Beckwith, Walter Bradley, J Budziszewski, Ergun Mehmet Caner, Winifred Corduan,

William Lane Craig, John S Feinberg, Norman L Geisler, R Douglas Geivett, Gary Habermas, Paul K Hoffman, Peter Kreeft, Barry R Leventhal, Josh Mcdowell, J P Moreland, Hugh Ross, Ravi Zacharias


134

since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it

plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—

his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being

understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to

him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.

Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools

Their admirable approaches would be revolutionised if like Savonarola, they presented a

holistic schema. His insights would not undermine their good work, nor discount any

valuable insight or evidence from any source, but integrate all as a unified presentation.

19 It is important that his teaching should be recovered and promoted

for the benefit of the Christian community in the 21st Century.

The Post Modern world recognizes differences in culture and philosophy and lifestyle, and

encourages us to tolerate and appreciate the subtle insights each can provide.

Postmodernism has come to dominate the underlying ethos of global academia and

media. Those who hold to this philosophy want us to see it as a way that can lead to

harmony if we just tolerate one another‟s beliefs.

Though many in a particular population may hold a Christian Worldview, even to the

point of it being the Worldview held by the majority of the population, the dominant

Worldview will be the one held by the leading thinkers, media and academics.

This was also true of Savonarola‟s day. The renaissance had many common attitudes

with those of today. Ideas became the novelty of academia and popular culture, but

Truth and Faith became casualties as old values were discarded.

We have seen how Savonarola challenged his hearers and readers by exposing the

inconsistencies of their Worldviews. Having shown that the philosophies of humanism

had no rational meaning or eternal purpose, he then presented the Christian Worldview

as an issue of truth.

Charles Colson has pointed out the importance of recognizing other Worldviews because

they concern first order issues affecting eternal salvation, and because the main issue is

Truth. This means that people who claim to be Christian, do not accept the Biblical

Definition of what a Christian is – that is, someone who follows Christ as the ONLY

saviour. He writes -

Most pro-life Americans cannot explain why they are pro-life. In his ‘Before the

Shooting Begins’, sociologist James Davidson Hunter discovered that most people

base their moral convictions on personal feelings instead of objective truth. In

this arena private experience has the final word. Consequently, if morality is

based on feeling, then we refrain from speaking about objective truth because we

might hurt someone’s feelings.

That’s why the watershed issue of our day is truth ~ the biblical teaching that


135

truth is not private but transcendent and deeply rooted in ultimate reality. 289

Postmodernism rides very lightly to truth and treats it as relative. „You have your truth

and I have mine’. But the truth is that this pervasive Worldview only works in social

areas. It cannot work in the areas of medicine – because it would lead to death. If the

doctor says that you have cancer, you do not say that it is just his construct on a story.

It cannot work in the areas of technology – because it would lead to breakdown. An

engineer servicing an airliner cannot be left to choose the parts and procedures

according to his personal truth. It cannot work in the area of law – because it would lead

to injustice. A person cannot be discharged and found innocent, against all the evidence,

just by pleading that the action was not illegal or immoral according to their personal

truth and that to disregard their personal truth would be intolerant.

Other Worldviews have inbuilt contradictions. Those who proclaim, „There is no absolute

truth‟ do not seem to recognise that this is an absolute truth claim and is therefore self

refuting. Many of them are also bold enough to assert, „Atheistic evolution is absolutely

true‟, which means they are sceptical about every single area of life – except evolution.

This is because we are dealing with people who do not think rationally anymore. As St

Paul says, they are - always learning but never able to acknowledge the truth. 2 Tim.

3:7

Yet such dominant Worldviews create an atmosphere which inhibits Christians from

sharing the truth of their faith, and undermines the meagre faith of many young people.

Savonarola‟s insights and Apologetic would enable them to discern what is going on and

to find confidence in the person of Christ – who is Truth.

20 Concluding remarks on the Purpose of Apologetics

Savonarola justifies his purpose as Apologist as we have noted above. He wanted to

reach the intellectuals of his day, with reasons to open their minds up to the

philosophical consistency of the Christian faith. In doing this there was the hope that

they might also have their hearts opened to the gospel. He also wanted to re-affirm the

faith of those who had been shaken by the secular „wisdom of their day‟. In doing this he

sought to protect the weak and guard the faithful.

We too need to clarify why we should engage in the same task today, and note some of

the opinions put forward to devalue the enterprise. Like Savonarola‟s day, we have a

culture that resists deep convictions, arguments and reasoning. Christians who are

swamped with these attitudes become reluctant to engage in Apologetics.

But this is not the faith as revealed in the Bible. It is full of argument and reasoning. The

objections and heresies are confronted and handled by argument. It was a characteristic

of the teaching style of Jesus and his Apostles. This was because the believers needed to

have their minds fed with the truth of God so that they could stand firm against the

voices ranged against them. Gresham Machen asserts –

289 Charles Colson, Lies that Go Unchallenged in Popular Culture, Tyndale House Publishers, Wheaton, 2005


136

Certainly one thing is clear, if Christian Apologetics suffers, injury will come to

every member of the body of Christ.290

The task today is not aimed primarily at the sceptics who have closed their hearts to the

gospel and stand against God‟s people. Our concern should be for our own young people

and children who are troubled by the hostile arguments and peer pressures confronting

them. They need to know that their faith is grounded on fact and is „reasonable’ and can

be defended intellectually. Some are more aware of what can be said against the faith,

than what can be said for it.

Behind the close circle of our own children and young people lies another circle of

countless millions of those who are not against the faith, but have discounted it because

they assume it to be untrue, or only relative to a particular group of believers. It is

absurd for us to expect them to come to trust someone about whom they know nothing.

There has to be a reasoned presentation of the gospel of Christ.

Thankfully new Savonarolas are still being raised up by God, because he recognises our

need of them. May he bless and use each of them.

290 Gresham Machen, The Importance of Christian Scholarship in the Defence of the Gospel. A reprinted talk given in London in 1932 and reproduced in New Reformation

Magazine, September 1996


137

21 Works cited and Bibliography

Book of Common Prayer 1662, Cambridge University Press

The New Dictionary Of Christian Ethics And Pastoral Theology, editors Atkinson

and Field, Inter Varsity Press, Leicester, 1995

The New Catholic Encyclopaedia, Catholic University of America, Washington DC,

1967

Catholic Encyclopaedia online, Washington DC, 2001

Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae

Helen Augur, translator, Religious Conversion, a Bio-Psychological Study, Harcourt,

Brace & Company, London, 1927

Augustine, City of God

Averroes, Al-Kashf 'an Manahij al-Adilla fi ‘Aqaid al-Milla (the Exposition of the

Methods of Proof Concerning the Beliefs of the Community)

James Montgomery Boice, Foundations Of The Christian Faith, Inter Varsity Press,

Leicester, 1981

Corrie Ten Boom, Common Sense not Needed, Christian Literature Crusade, London,

2003

Robert Brow, Origins of Religion in The World's Religions, Lion Publishing. Tring,

England, 1982, 2nd. edition 1994

Colin Brown, Christianity And Western Thought, Volume One, Inter Varsity Press,

Downers Grove, Illinois, 1990

Colin Brown, Philosophy And The Christian Faith, Tyndale Press, London, 1969

Giorgio Carbone OP, editor, Il trionfo della croce. La ragionevolezza della fede:

„The Triumph of the Cross. The reasonableness of faith‟, Edizioni Studio Domenicano.

2001

Colin Chapman, The Case For Christianity, Lion Publishing, Tring, 1981

Clement of Alexandria, Protrepticus

Charles Colson, Lies that Go Unchallenged in Popular Culture, Tyndale House

Publishers, Wheaton, 2005

Charles Darwin, Origins of the Species, London, 1859

J. H. Merle D'Aubigne, History of the Reformation. Vol. 1, American Tract Society,

New York, 1848

Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, Bantam Press, London, 2006

A. G. Dickens, Martin Luther and the Reformation, English Universities Press, London

1970

Robert Deffinbaugh, Let Me See Thy Glory: A Study of the Attributes of God,

Biblical Studies Press, 2002

Charles Dickens, A Tale of Two Cities, Penguin Classics, London, 2000


138

Avery Dulles, A History of Apologetics, Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 2005

David Otis Fuller, Ed., Valiant For The Truth, A Treasury of Evangelical Writings,

McGraw-Hill, New York, 1961

D B Garlington, New Dictionary of Christian Ethics and Pastoral Theology, Inter

Varsity Press, Downers Grove, Illinois 1995

Norman L Geisler, Christian Ethics – Options and Issues, Baker Book House. 1990

Geisler and Feinberg, Introduction to Philosophy, Baker Book House, 2005

Norman L Geisler and Paul K Hoffman, Why I am a Christian, leading thinkers

explain why they believe, Baker Book House, 2006

V. H. H. Green, Renaissance and Reformation: A Survey of European History

between 1450 and 1660, Edward Arnold, London, 1952

Thomas Guarino, First Things: A Monthly Journal of Religion and Public Life.

Issue: 161, Institute on Religion and Public Life. March 2006

Harriet A. Harris, Fundamentalism and Evangelicals, Clarendon Press. Oxford. 1998

P.K. Helseth, On Divine Ambivalence, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society,

44.3 , September 2001

Brian Hepplethwaite, In Defence of Christianity, Oxford University Press, Oxford 2005

Peter Kreeft and Ronald K. Tacelli, Handbook of Christian Apologetics: Hundreds of

Answers to Crucial Questions, Inter Varsity Press, Downers Grove. 1994

Paul Kurtz, editor, Humanist Manifestos I and II, Prometheus Books, New York, 1984

Paul Kurtz, editor, Humanist Manifesto 2000: A Call for New Planetary Humanism,

Prometheus Books, New York, 2000

G E Ladd, The New Testament and Criticism, Grand Rapids. 1960

C. S. Lewis, God in the Dock: Essays on Theology and Ethics, ed. Walter Hooper,

Erdmans, Grand Rapids, 1970

C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, Collins, London 1952

CS Lewis, Screwtape Letters, Collins Fontana, London, 1963

H. D. Lewis, Our Experience of God: Allen & Unwin. London. 1959

Thomas M. Lindsay, A History of the Reformation. Volume: 1, T & T Clark.

Edinburgh. 1907

F. Donald Logan, A History of the Church in the Middle Ages, Routledge Press.

London. 2002

Gresham Machen, The Importance of Christian Scholarship in the Defence of the

Gospel. A reprinted talk given in London in 1932 and reproduced in New

Reformation Magazine, September 1996

Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho the Jew; Apologies

H D Macdonald, I and He, London, 1967


139

Bernard McGinn, Apocalyptic Spirituality: Treatises and Letters of Lactantius,

Adso of Montier-En-Der, Joachim of Fiore, the Franciscan Spirituals, Savonarola,

Paulist Press. New York, 1979

Alister McGrath, Bridge Building - Effective Christian Apologetics, Inter Varsity

Press, Leicester, 1992

John Warwick Montgomery, Evidence For Faith, Probe Books, Dallas 1991

John Warwick Montgomery, Legal Reasoning and Christian Apologetics, Christianity

Today, February 14, 1975

John Warwick Montgomery, The Law Above The Law, Minneapolis: Bethany, 1975

John Warwick Montgomery, God's inerrant word, Lessons from Luther on the

Inerrancy of Holy Writ, Trinity Press, Newburgh, 1974

John Warwick Montgomery, Law & Gospel, Oak Park: Christian Legal Society, 1978.

Reprinted in 1995 by the Canadian Institute for Law, Theology & Public Policy

John Warwick Montgomery, Faith founded on Fact, Trinity Press, Newburgh, 1978

John Warwick Montgomery, The Suicide of Christian Theology, Trinity Press,

Newburgh, 1970

Frank Morison, Who Moved the Stone?, revised edition, Faber and Faber, London,

1975

John Olin, The Catholic Reformation – Savonarola To Ignatius Loyola, Harper

Row, New York, NY, 1969

Origen, Contra Celsum, ‘Against Celsus’

Pierre Van Paassen, A Crown of Fire: The Life and Times of Girolamo Savonarola,

Scribner, New York, 1960

James Packer, Evangelism And The Sovereignty Of God, Inter Varsity Fellowship,

London, 1966

Alvin Plantinga, The Dawkins Confusion - Naturalism ad absurdum, Books &

Culture, March/April 2007. Available at -

http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2007/002/1.21.html

Alvin Plantinga, Warranted Christian Belief, Oxford University Press, New York, 2000

John Proctor, translator, The Triumph Of The Cross, Sands and Company, London,

1901

Jill Raitt, contributor, Bernard McGinn and John Meyendorff, editors, Christian

Spirituality: High Middle Ages and Reformation: Crossroad Publishing. New York.

1988

Renwick, A M., The Story Of The Church, Inter Varsity Fellowship, 1958

J A T Robinson, Honest to God, SCM Press, London 1963

Michael Rocke, Forbidden Friendships: Homosexuality and Male Culture in

Renaissance Florence, Oxford University Press. 1996

Bertrand Russell, Religion and Science: new edition with Introduction by Michael

Ruse, Oxford University Press, 1997


140

John Sanders, The God Who Risks, a Theology of Providence, Inter Varsity Press,

Downers Grove, 1998

David Sanford, in his book, If God Disappears: 9 Faith Wreckers and What to Do

about Them, Tyndale, Wheaton. 2008

Sennett, James, editor, The Analytic Theist - An Alvin Plantinga Reader, Eerdmans

Publishing, Cambridge, 1998

Francis A. Schaeffer, The God Who Is There, Inter Varsity Press, London 1968

James Sire, The Universe Next Door, Inter Varsity Press-Academic, Downers Grove,

2004

B. F. Skinner, Beyond Freedom and Dignity, Vintage Book, New York, 1972

Lewis Smedes, Mere Morality, published by Erdmans, Grand Rapids. 1996

Sproul, R.C., Willing To Believe, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, 1997

CH Spurgeon, The Sword and the Trowel, The Florentine Monk, London, 1869

John G. Stackhouse Jr., Humble Apologetics: Defending the Faith Today. Oxford

University Press. New York. 2002

Angela Tilby, Science and the Soul, SPCK, London 1992

Charles De Tolnay, The Youth of Michelangelo, Princeton University Press. Princeton,

NJ. 1943

O'Dell Travers Hill, translator, The Triumph Of The Cross, Hodder, London 1868

Timothy Verdon Contributor, John Henderson, editor, Christianity and the

Renaissance: Image and Religious Imagination in the Quattrocento, Syracuse

University Press. Syracuse, NY. 1990

A D Verhey, New Dictionary of Christian Ethics and Pastoral Theology, Inter

Varsity Press, Downers Grove, Illinois 1995

Professor Pasquale Villari, translated from the Italian by Linda Villari, Life And Times Of

Savonarola, T. Fisher Unwin, London 1888

BB Warfield, Apologetics, available at www.graceonlinelibrary.org/articles/full

Joachim Weinhardt, PhD thesis (1998), ‘Savonarola als Apologet’, The University of

Tubingen, Germany. published by Walter de Gruyter & Co, Berlin, 2003

Donald Weinstein, Savonarola: Piety, Prophecy and Politics in Renaissance

Florence, Bridwell Library, Dallas, 1994

Geoffrey B Wilson, Romans, Banner of Truth Trust, London 1969

Nicholas Wolterstorff, Divine Discourse: Philosophical Reflections on the Claim

that God Speaks, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1995)

Internet Websites

www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2007/002/1.21.html

www.graceonlinelibrary.org/articles/full

www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/lofiversion/index.php/t126112.html


141

www.maranathacommunity.org.uk

library.word-life.orglibrary.word-life.org/subjects/apologetics/savonarola... · 2014-07-23 ·...

Documents