antithesis self meaning

Antithesis Definition

What is antithesis? Here’s a quick and simple definition:

Antithesis is a figure of speech that juxtaposes two contrasting or opposing ideas, usually within parallel grammatical structures. For instance, Neil Armstrong used antithesis when he stepped onto the surface of the moon in 1969 and said, "That's one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind." This is an example of antithesis because the two halves of the sentence mirror each other in grammatical structure, while together the two halves emphasize the incredible contrast between the individual experience of taking an ordinary step, and the extraordinary progress that Armstrong's step symbolized for the human race.

Some additional key details about antithesis:

• Antithesis works best when it is used in conjunction with parallelism (successive phrases that use the same grammatical structure), since the repetition of structure makes the contrast of the content of the phrases as clear as possible.
• The word "antithesis" has another meaning, which is to describe something as being the opposite of another thing. For example, "love is the antithesis of selfishness." This guide focuses only on antithesis as a literary device.
• The word antithesis has its origins in the Greek word antithenai , meaning "to oppose." The plural of antithesis is antitheses.

How to Pronounce Antithesis

Here's how to pronounce antithesis: an- tith -uh-sis

Antithesis and Parallelism

Often, but not always, antithesis works in tandem with parallelism . In parallelism, two components of a sentence (or pair of sentences) mirror one another by repeating grammatical elements. The following is a good example of both antithesis and parallelism:

To err is human , to forgive divine .

The two clauses of the sentence are parallel because each starts off with an infinitive verb and ends with an adjective ("human" and "divine"). The mirroring of these elements then works to emphasize the contrast in their content, particularly in the very strong opposite contrast between "human" and "divine."

Antithesis Without Parallelism

In most cases, antitheses involve parallel elements of the sentence—whether a pair of nouns, verbs, adjectives, or other grammar elements. However, it is also possible to have antithesis without such clear cut parallelism. In the Temptations Song "My Girl," the singer uses antithesis when he says:

"When it's cold outside , I've got the month of May ."

Here the sentence is clearly cut into two clauses on either side of the comma, and the contrasting elements are clear enough. However, strictly speaking there isn't true parallelism here because "cold outside" and "month of May" are different types of grammatical structures (an adjective phrase and a noun phrase, respectively).

Antithesis vs. Related Terms

Three literary terms that are often mistakenly used in the place of antithesis are juxtaposition , oxymoron , and foil . Each of these three terms does have to do with establishing a relationship of difference between two ideas or characters in a text, but beyond that there are significant differences between them.

Antithesis vs. Juxtaposition

In juxtaposition , two things or ideas are placed next to one another to draw attention to their differences or similarities. In juxtaposition, the pairing of two ideas is therefore not necessarily done to create a relationship of opposition or contradiction between them, as is the case with antithesis. So, while antithesis could be a type of juxtaposition, juxtaposition is not always antithesis.

Antithesis vs. Oxymoron

In an oxymoron , two seemingly contradictory words are placed together because their unlikely combination reveals a deeper truth. Some examples of oxymorons include:

• Sweet sorrow
• Cruel kindness
• Living dead

The focus of antithesis is opposites rather than contradictions . While the words involved in oxymorons seem like they don't belong together (until you give them deeper thought), the words or ideas of antithesis do feel like they belong together even as they contrast as opposites. Further, antitheses seldom function by placing the two words or ideas right next to one another, so antitheses are usually made up of more than two words (as in, "I'd rather be among the living than among the dead").

Antithesis vs. Foil

Some Internet sources use "antithesis" to describe an author's decision to create two characters in a story that are direct opposites of one another—for instance, the protagonist and antagonist . But the correct term for this kind of opposition is a foil : a person or thing in a work of literature that contrasts with another thing in order to call attention to its qualities. While the sentence "the hare was fast, and the tortoise was slow" is an example of antithesis, if we step back and look at the story as a whole, the better term to describe the relationship between the characters of the tortoise and the hare is "foil," as in, "The character of the hare is a foil of the tortoise."

Antithesis Examples

Antithesis in literature.

Below are examples of antithesis from some of English literature's most acclaimed writers — and a comic book!

Antithesis in Charles Dickens' A Tale of Two Cities

In the famous opening lines of A Tale of Two Cities , Dickens sets out a flowing list of antitheses punctuated by the repetition of the word "it was" at the beginning of each clause (which is itself an example of the figure of speech anaphora ). By building up this list of contrasts, Dickens sets the scene of the French Revolution that will serve as the setting of his tale by emphasizing the division and confusion of the era. The overwhelming accumulation of antitheses is also purposefully overdone; Dickens is using hyperbole to make fun of the "noisiest authorities" of the day and their exaggerated claims. The passage contains many examples of antithesis, each consisting of one pair of contrasting ideas that we've highlighted to make the structure clearer.

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 —in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only.

Antithesis in John Milton's Paradise Lost

In this verse from Paradise Lost , Milton's anti-hero , Satan, claims he's happier as the king of Hell than he could ever have been as a servant in Heaven. He justifies his rebellion against God with this pithy phrase, and the antithesis drives home the double contrast between Hell and Heaven, and between ruling and serving.

Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven.

Antithesis in William Shakespeare's Othello

As the plot of Othello nears its climax , the antagonist of the play, Iago, pauses for a moment to acknowledge the significance of what is about to happen. Iago uses antithesis to contrast the two opposite potential outcomes of his villainous plot: either events will transpire in Iago's favor and he will come out on top, or his treachery will be discovered, ruining him.

This is the night That either makes me or fordoes me quite .

In this passage, the simple word "either" functions as a cue for the reader to expect some form of parallelism, because the "either" signals that a contrast between two things is coming.

Antithesis in William Shakespeare's Hamlet

Shakespeare's plays are full of antithesis, and so is Hamlet's most well-known "To be or not to be" soliloquy . This excerpt of the soliloquy is a good example of an antithesis that is not limited to a single word or short phrase. The first instance of antithesis here, where Hamlet announces the guiding question (" to be or not to be ") is followed by an elaboration of each idea ("to be" and "not to be") into metaphors that then form their own antithesis. Both instances of antithesis hinge on an " or " that divides the two contrasting options.

To be or not to be , that is the question: Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune Or to take arms against a sea of troubles, And by opposing end them ...

Antithesis in T.S. Eliot's "Four Quartets"

In this excerpt from his poem "Four Quartets," T.S. Eliot uses antithesis to describe the cycle of life, which is continuously passing from beginning to end, from rise to fall, and from old to new.

In my beginning is my end . In succession Houses rise and fall , crumble, are extended, Are removed, destroyed, restored, or in their place Is an open field, or a factory, or a by-pass. Old stone to new building , old timber to new fires ...

Antithesis in Green Lantern's Oath

Comic book writers know the power of antithesis too! In this catchy oath, Green Lantern uses antithesis to emphasize that his mission to defeat evil will endure no matter the conditions.

In brightest day , in blackest night , No evil shall escape my sight. Let those who worship evil's might Beware my power—Green lantern's light!

While most instances of antithesis are built around an "or" that signals the contrast between the two parts of the sentence, the Green Lantern oath works a bit differently. It's built around an implied "and" (to be technical, that first line of the oath is an asyndeton that replaces the "and" with a comma), because members of the Green Lantern corps are expressing their willingness to fight evil in all places, even very opposite environments.

Antithesis in Speeches

Many well-known speeches contain examples of antithesis. Speakers use antithesis to drive home the stakes of what they are saying, sometimes by contrasting two distinct visions of the future.

Antithesis in Patrick Henry's Speech to the Second Virginia Convention, 1775

This speech by famous American patriot Patrick Henry includes one of the most memorable and oft-quoted phrases from the era of the American Revolution. Here, Henry uses antithesis to emphasize just how highly he prizes liberty, and how deadly serious he is about his fight to achieve it.

Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take: but as for me, give me liberty or give me death .

Antithesis in Martin Luther King Jr.'s Oberlin Commencement Address

In this speech by one of America's most well-known orators, antithesis allows Martin Luther King Jr. to highlight the contrast between two visions of the future; in the first vision, humans rise above their differences to cooperate with one another, while in the other humanity is doomed by infighting and division.

We must all learn to live together as brothers —or we will all perish together as fools .

Antithesis in Songs

In songs, contrasting two opposite ideas using antithesis can heighten the dramatic tension of a difficult decision, or express the singer's intense emotion—but whatever the context, antithesis is a useful tool for songwriters mainly because opposites are always easy to remember, so lyrics that use antithesis tend to stick in the head.

Antithesis in "Should I Stay or Should I Go" by The Clash (1981)

In this song by The Clash, the speaker is caught at a crossroads between two choices, and antithesis serves as the perfect tool to express just how confused and conflicted he is. The rhetorical question —whether to stay or to go—presents two opposing options, and the contrast between his lover's mood from one day (when everything is "fine") to the next (when it's all "black") explains the difficulty of his choice.

One day it's fine and next it's black So if you want me off your back Well, come on and let me know Should I stay or should I go ? Should I stay or should I go now? Should I stay or should I go now? If I go, there will be trouble If I stay it will be double ...

Antithesis in "My Girl" by the Temptations (1965)

In this song, the singer uses a pair of metaphors to describe the feeling of joy that his lover brings him. This joy is expressed through antithesis, since the singer uses the miserable weather of a cloudy, cold day as the setting for the sunshine-filled month of May that "his girl" makes him feel inside, emphasizing the power of his emotions by contrasting them with the bleak weather.

I've got sunshine on a cloudy day When it's cold outside I've got the month of May Well I guess you'd say, What can make me feel this way? My girl, my girl, my girl Talkin' bout my girl.

Why Do Writers Use Antithesis?

Fundamentally, writers of all types use antithesis for its ability to create a clear contrast. This contrast can serve a number of purposes, as shown in the examples above. It can:

• Present a stark choice between two alternatives.
• Convey magnitude or range (i.e. "in brightest day, in darkest night" or "from the highest mountain, to the deepest valley").
• Express strong emotions.
• Create a relationship of opposition between two separate ideas.
• Accentuate the qualities and characteristics of one thing by placing it in opposition to another.

Whatever the case, antithesis almost always has the added benefit of making language more memorable to listeners and readers. The use of parallelism and other simple grammatical constructions like "either/or" help to establish opposition between concepts—and opposites have a way of sticking in the memory.

Other Helpful Antithesis Resources

• The Wikipedia page on Antithesis : A useful summary with associated examples, along with an extensive account of antithesis in the Gospel of Matthew.
• Sound bites from history : A list of examples of antithesis in famous political speeches from United States history — with audio clips!
• A blog post on antithesis : This quick rundown of antithesis focuses on a quote you may know from Muhammad Ali's philosophy of boxing: "Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee."

• PDFs for all 136 Lit Terms we cover
• Downloads of 1964 LitCharts Lit Guides
• Teacher Editions for every Lit Guide
• Explanations and citation info for 41,397 quotes across 1964 books
• Downloadable (PDF) line-by-line translations of every Shakespeare play
• Climax (Figure of Speech)
• Figure of Speech
• Juxtaposition
• Parallelism
• Protagonist
• Rhetorical Question
• Antimetabole
• Blank Verse
• Pathetic Fallacy
• Stream of Consciousness
• Onomatopoeia
• Round Character
• Dramatic Irony
• Static Character
• Extended Metaphor
• Internal Rhyme

• More from M-W
• To save this word, you'll need to log in. Log In

Definition of antithesis

Did you know.

Writers and speechmakers use the traditional pattern known as antithesis for its resounding effect; John Kennedy's famous "ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country" is an example. But antithesis normally means simply "opposite". Thus, war is the antithesis of peace, wealth is the antithesis of poverty, and love is the antithesis of hate. Holding two antithetical ideas in one's head at the same time—for example, that you're the sole master of your fate but also the helpless victim of your terrible upbringing—is so common as to be almost normal.

Examples of antithesis in a Sentence

These examples are programmatically compiled from various online sources to illustrate current usage of the word 'antithesis.' Any opinions expressed in the examples do not represent those of Merriam-Webster or its editors. Send us feedback about these examples.

Word History

Late Latin, from Greek, literally, opposition, from antitithenai to oppose, from anti- + tithenai to set — more at do

1529, in the meaning defined at sense 1b(1)

Dictionary Entries Near antithesis

anti-theoretical

Cite this Entry

“Antithesis.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary , Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/antithesis. Accessed 14 Jul. 2024.

Kids Definition

Kids definition of antithesis, more from merriam-webster on antithesis.

Nglish: Translation of antithesis for Spanish Speakers

Britannica English: Translation of antithesis for Arabic Speakers

Britannica.com: Encyclopedia article about antithesis

Subscribe to America's largest dictionary and get thousands more definitions and advanced search—ad free!

Can you solve 4 words at once?

Word of the day.

See Definitions and Examples »

Get Word of the Day daily email!

Popular in Grammar & Usage

Plural and possessive names: a guide, commonly misspelled words, how to use em dashes (—), en dashes (–) , and hyphens (-), absent letters that are heard anyway, how to use accents and diacritical marks, popular in wordplay, it's a scorcher words for the summer heat, flower etymologies for your spring garden, 12 star wars words, 'swash', 'praya', and 12 more beachy words, 8 words for lesser-known musical instruments, games & quizzes.

Definition of Antithesis

Examples of antithesis in everyday speech, common examples of antithesis from famous speeches, examples of proverbs featuring antithesis, utilizing antithesis in writing, antithesis and parallelism, antithesis and juxtaposition, use of antithesis in sentences  , examples of antithesis in literature, example 1:  hamlet (william shakespeare).

Give every man thine ear, but few thy voice ; Take each man’s censure, but reserve thy judgment.

Example 2:  Paradise Lost  (John Milton)

Here at least We shall be free; the Almighty hath not built Here for his envy, will not drive us hence: Here we may reign secure, and in my choice To reign is worth ambition though in Hell: Better to reign in Hell, than serve in Heaven.

Example 3:  Fire and Ice  (Robert Frost)

Some say the world will end in fire, Some say in ice. From what I’ve tasted of desire I hold with those who favor fire. But if it had to perish twice, I think I know enough of hate To say that for destruction ice Is also great And would suffice.

Example 4: The Gettysburg Address by Abraham Lincoln

We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives so that nation might live.

The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract.

The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here.

Function of Antithesis

Synonyms of antithesis, post navigation.

What is Antithesis? Definition, Examples of Antitheses in Writing

Home » The Writer’s Dictionary » What is Antithesis? Definition, Examples of Antitheses in Writing

Antithesis definition: Antithesis is a literary and rhetorical device where two seemingly contrasting ideas are expressed through parallel structure.

What is Antithesis?

What does antithesis mean? An antithesis is just that—an “anti” “thesis.” An antithesis is used in writing to express ideas that seem contradictory.

An antithesis uses parallel structure of two ideas to communicate this contradiction.

Example of Antithesis:

• “Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee.” –Muhammad Ali

First, the structure is parallel. Each “side” of the phrase has the same number of words and the same structure. Each uses a verb followed by a simile.

Second, the contracting elements of a butterfly and a bee seem contradictory. That is, a butterfly is light and airy while a bee is sharp and stinging. One person (a boxer, in this case) should not be able to possess these two qualities—this is why this is an antithesis.

However, Ali is trying to express how a boxer must be light on his feet yet quick with his fist.

Modern Examples of Antithesis

• “That’s one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind.”

Through parallel structure, this quotation presents an antithesis. It seems contradictory that one action could be a “small step” and a “giant leap.”

However, this contradiction proposes that the action of landing on the moon might have just been a small physical step for the man Neil Armstrong, but it was a giant leap for the progress of mankind.

The Function of Antithesis

An antithesis stands out in writing. Because it uses parallel structure, an antithesis physically stands out when interspersed among other syntactical structures. Furthermore, an antithesis presents contrasting ideas that cause the reader or audience to pause and consider the meaning and purpose.

Oftentimes, the meaning of an antithesis is not overtly clear. That is, a reader or audience must evaluate the statement to navigate the meaning.

Writers utilize antitheses very sparingly. Since its purpose is to cause an audience to pause and consider the argument, it must be used with purpose and intent.

Antithesis Example from Literature

• “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…”

From the beginning, Dickens presents two contradictory ideas in this antithesis.

How can it be the “best” and the “worst” of times? These two “times” should not be able to coexist.

Similarly, how can the setting of this novel also take place during an “age of wisdom” and an “age of foolishness?”

The antithesis continues.

Dickens opens his with these lines to set the tone for the rest of the novel. Clearly, there are two sides to this story, two tales of what is the truth. These two “sides” should not function peacefully. And, in fact, they do not. That, after all, is the “tale of two cities.”

Dickens sets up this disparity to set the tone for his novel, which will explore this topic.

Summary: What is an Antithesis?

Define antithesis: An antithesis consists of contrasting concepts presented in parallel structure.

Writers use antithesis to create emphasis to communicate an argument.

• Note: The plural form of antithesis is antitheses.

• Cambridge Dictionary +Plus

Meaning of antithesis in English

Your browser doesn't support HTML5 audio

• antithetical
• anything but idiom
• diametrical
• dichotomist
• dichotomous
• or otherwise idiom
• poles apart idiom

You can also find related words, phrases, and synonyms in the topics:

Related word

Antithesis | american dictionary, examples of antithesis, translations of antithesis.

Get a quick, free translation!

Word of the Day

slip of the tongue

something that you say by accident when you intended to say something else

Committing, tackling, and solving: Talking about crime

Learn more with +Plus

• Recent and Recommended {{#preferredDictionaries}} {{name}} {{/preferredDictionaries}}
• Definitions Clear explanations of natural written and spoken English English Learner’s Dictionary Essential British English Essential American English
• Grammar and thesaurus Usage explanations of natural written and spoken English Grammar Thesaurus
• Pronunciation British and American pronunciations with audio English Pronunciation
• English–Chinese (Simplified) Chinese (Simplified)–English
• English–Chinese (Traditional) Chinese (Traditional)–English
• English–Dutch Dutch–English
• English–French French–English
• English–German German–English
• English–Indonesian Indonesian–English
• English–Italian Italian–English
• English–Japanese Japanese–English
• English–Norwegian Norwegian–English
• English–Polish Polish–English
• English–Portuguese Portuguese–English
• English–Spanish Spanish–English
• English–Swedish Swedish–English
• Dictionary +Plus Word Lists
• English    Noun
• American    Noun
• Translations
• All translations

To add antithesis to a word list please sign up or log in.

Add antithesis to one of your lists below, or create a new one.

{{message}}

Something went wrong.

There was a problem sending your report.

Antithesis Meaning: Here’s What It Means and How To Use It

Your writing, at its best

Compose bold, clear, mistake-free, writing with Grammarly's AI-powered writing assistant

Today we’ll learn about the art of contrasting ideas; antithesis is a popular word used when describing opposites; it’s a commonly used literary device in the English language. 

If you’re itching to learn more about antithesis, keep reading. We have all the necessary information below on your word of the day. 

What Is the Definition of Antithesis? 

Antithesis is the opposite of a person or thing; it’s a figure of speech and a commonly used literary device in the English language. 

Antithesis is another way to claim two things are direct opposites or exact opposites . It can also be a rhetorical device showing a contrast of ideas by using parallel grammatical arrangements (we’ll talk more about these later.)

If you learned about the Hegelian dialectic in school, then chances are you’re familiar (or have at least heard) this word once or twice. The Hegelian dialectic is when the idea presented in an argument is countered with the opposing idea. Then, the two are reconciled in the synthesis. You need a thesis to have an antithesis, or else you would have nothing to compare it to. 

Chances are you’ve heard or seen antithesis before without even realizing it. For example, did you know the famous John F. Kennedy quote, explaining how U.S. citizens should stop asking for their country to better them, but how they could better their country is the perfect example of an antithesis? That’s right — and if you look closely at the quote, we bet you’ll see how. This famous sentence exemplifies the resounding effect and is a tool many writers, speakers, and poets use. 

Antithesis is used in tons of famous literature including “Paradise Lost” by John Milton, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s speeches, Abraham Lincoln’s famous speech, “ The Gettysburg Address,”,” A Tale of Two Cities” by Charles Dickens, and “Hamlet” by William Shakespeare.  

Parallel Grammatical Structure 

Before we get into the depths of what antithesis means, we want to break down everything we just covered. We explained that antithesis is used as a literary device since it’s a great way to mirror opposing ideas by using parallel grammatical structuring — but what is parallel grammatical structuring? Let us explain!

Essentially parallel sentence structuring is a tool to show the juxtaposition of contrasting ideas. The parallelism effect can help readability while making the text easier to process. It can be challenging to introduce the contrast of ideas without completely confusing the reader. This literary tool makes it much easier for the writer to portray his or her idea to the reader so they can understand the objective and message behind the text. 

What Is the Origin of Antithesis? 

Wondering what the etymology of antithesis is? You’re in luck, we have tons of information about its origin below. 

Antithesis is a noun and is derived from a late Latin and Greek root meaning “setting opposites,” “opposition,” or “set against.” It has always been used to describe two terms, ideas, clauses, or sentences that contrast while remaining within a balanced grammatical structure.

Writers as old as Aristotle have utilized this traditional pattern to help enhance their written and verbal communication — Aristotle claimed antithesis helps the audience better understand the objective the speaker is trying to make. 

How Can You Use Antithesis? 

An antithesis is a commonly used literary tool and is commonly utilized in speeches or music. It can be tricky to think up a solid antithesis on your own, but that’s what makes a good writer a great one — processing the ability to bring both (or all) their ideas together at the end of their story. 

A great storyteller must find a way to bring all the working parts of their piece together in the story’s final stages. The objective and message must be clear making the rest of the text seem very concise and well thought-out. 

Reading speeches or stories known for their impressive antitheseis is a great way to gain more knowledge on this topic and will make the task of thinking of your own that much easier!

Examples of Antithesis 

Sometimes the easiest way to learn about a new word is by analyzing its use in sentences. 

Remember, antithesis is a word that can be used in a sentence to describe the opposite of something, but it can also be a literary device to enhance readability. We’re going to give you example sentences in both forms. 

Love is a desired thing, but a marriage is a real thing. 

He’s easy on the eyes but hard on my heart.

It’s never too early, and never too late.

This is one small step for man, but one giant leap for mankind.

Many are called, but few are chosen.

Go big or go home.

Spicy food feels like heaven on your tongue, but hell in the tummy.

Those who can do; those who can’t do, teach.

Get busy living or get busy dying.

Speech is silver, but silence is golden.

No pain, no gain.

It’s not a show, friends; it’s show business.

No guts, no glory.

If you fail to plan, then you plan to fail.

Slavery is the antithesis of freedom. 

His character is the antithesis of Jamie’s attitude.  

Her attitude was an antithesis of mine. 

In Conclusion 

Reading and learning about a word is the first step to becoming a master of its use. Even though formulating a great antithesis on your own isn’t the easiest task, practice makes perfect — you won’t ever succeed if you don’t try. 

Sources: 

Parallel Structure | Ever Green 

Hegelian Dialectic Definition and Meaning | Collins English Dictionary

Antithesis Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com

Kevin Miller is a growth marketer with an extensive background in Search Engine Optimization, paid acquisition and email marketing. He is also an online editor and writer based out of Los Angeles, CA. He studied at Georgetown University, worked at Google and became infatuated with English Grammar and for years has been diving into the language, demystifying the do's and don'ts for all who share the same passion! He can be found online here.

Recent Posts

Purple Meaning: Here’s What It Means and How To Use It

Agape Meaning: Here’s What It Means and How To Use It

Default Meaning: Here’s What It Means and How To Use It

Heresy Meaning: Here’s What It Means and How To Use It

What Is an Antithesis? Definition & 15+ Examples

Ever wondered how great writers and speakers create captivating contrasts to emphasize their points and leave you pondering?

The secret behind these mesmerizing moments often lies in the use of a powerful rhetorical tool called antithesis . This technique employs oppositional language to present contrasting ideas, which adds depth, color, and intrigue to language, leaving audiences eager for more.

From speeches to literature, antithesis has long been appreciated as a valuable component of persuasive and thought-provoking communication. Exploring these instances helps to deepen our understanding of how antithesis functions, as well as why it continues to be a beloved and effective rhetorical device in various forms of expression.

Let’s take a closer look:

Table of Contents

What Is Antithesis?

Antithesis is a figure of speech that uses parallelism to present opposing ideas. In essence, it is the juxtaposition of contrasting concepts, usually in balanced or parallel phrases, to create a heightened effect in a sentence or expression.

This rhetorical device can emphasize the differences between two opposing ideas, allowing the writer or speaker to deliver a powerful message more effectively.

In simple terms, “antithesis” is the opposition or contrast of ideas or words in a balanced construction. This technique is often employed to:

• Strengthen an argument.
• Emphasize a point.
• Create a vivid and memorable image for the reader or listener.

Antithesis can be found in various forms of literature, including poetry, prose, and speeches, and is often used to give emphasis to the importance of a particular idea or theme.

There are several ways in which antithesis can be presented:

• Word Antithesis: The use of opposing words or phrases, such as “love and hate” or “good and evil.”
• Ideological Antithesis: The expression of opposing beliefs or principles, such as “freedom versus tyranny” or “democracy versus totalitarianism.”
• Structural Antithesis: The arrangement of contrasting ideas in a parallel form, often using parallelism or repetition to highlight the contrast.

Employing antithesis can make language more expressive and engaging, drawing attention to the ideas being presented and making them more memorable. It serves as an effective tool for writers and speakers who seek to create a lasting impact on their audience through the power of opposing concepts.

Origins and History of Antithesis

Antithesis, derived from the Greek word “ antitithenai ,” which means “to set against,” is a figure of speech in which two opposing ideas are juxtaposed in a balanced, parallel manner. This deliberate contrast serves to heighten the impact of the ideas being presented and contributes to the overall strength and effectiveness of the argument.

Antithesis can be traced back to classical rhetoric , the art of effective and persuasive communication. It emerged prominently as a stylistic device in the works of ancient Greek and Roman orators and writers who sought to:

• Craft impactful arguments
• Create memorable phrases

The roots of antithesis lie in the use of parallelism , a rhetorical tool that involves expressing contrasting or opposing ideas in a balanced and parallel structure. This technique was employed by classical rhetoricians to emphasize the contrasts in their arguments and engage their audience effectively.

Throughout history, numerous famous orators and writers have demonstrated a mastery of antithesis. Here are some notable examples:

The ancient Greek philosopher was a skilled rhetorician, and his works often exemplified antithesis. In his work, Rhetoric , he provided a thorough analysis of various rhetorical techniques, including antithesis, to help his students persuasively convey their ideas.

As one of Rome’s greatest orators and a renowned lawyer, Cicero was well-versed in rhetorical devices. His speeches frequently utilized antithesis to emphasize particular points and create powerful statements that resonated with his audience.

William Shakespeare

The famous playwright often employed antithesis in his works, emphasizing contrasts and creating memorable lines. One of the most famous examples of antithesis in literature can be found in his play, Hamlet , with the line, “To be or not to be.”

Abraham Lincoln

The 16th President of the United States was also an adept user of antithesis. In his famous Gettysburg Address, Lincoln used antithesis to create a moving and poignant speech that resonates with audiences to this day.

These prominent figures from ancient Greece to modern times have utilized antithesis as an effective means of emphasizing contrasts and crafting impactful phrases, showcasing the enduring appeal of this rhetorical device.

Function and Purpose of Antithesis

It balances ideas, engages minds, and inspires reflection.

Antithesis serves several significant functions in both written and spoken language. Its primary purpose is to create balance , contrast , and emphasis , highlighting the differences between two opposing ideas or concepts.

By utilizing antithesis, writers, and speakers can effectively engage their readers or listeners and provoke thoughtful considerations of opposing viewpoints.

It Acts as a Catalyst for Deeper Understanding

The use of antithesis stimulates intellectual curiosity, prompting readers or listeners to ponder the implications of juxtaposing contrasting ideas.

This rhetorical device encourages deeper understanding and fuller appreciation of the complexities inherent in language and human thought. As a result, antithesis enhances the impact of a piece of writing or speech.

It Enhances Focus and Fosters Analytical Thinking

In addition, antithesis is an effective method for drawing attention to crucial points or ideas.

By bringing opposition to the forefront, it emphasizes the significance of contemplating various perspectives, which in turn fosters an open and analytical mindset. This technique is particularly beneficial in persuasive writing and speaking, as it can help sway the audience toward a specific stance or argument.

Examples of ways to employ antithesis include:

• Pairing opposite adjectives, such as “cold” and “hot,” to emphasize the extremity of the subject.
• Using contrasting phrases, like “sink or swim,” to underline the importance of a decision or action.
• Juxtaposing conflicting concepts or proposals, such as “peace” and “war,” to examine the consequences of each.

Types of Antithesis

Antithesis can be broadly divided into two categories: Verbal Antithesis and Conceptual Antithesis. Each type serves a different purpose in conveying opposing ideas or concepts in a piece of writing or speech.

Verbal Antithesis

Verbal Antithesis involves the use of words or phrases with opposite meanings in a single sentence or expression. This type of antithesis serves to emphasize the contrast between two opposing ideas by placing them in close proximity to one another.

Examples can include the use of:

• Oxymorons , where contradictory terms are combined.
• Parallelism , where contrasting words or phrases are structured similarly.

Some examples of Verbal Antithesis are:

• “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times.” (Charles Dickens)
• “To err is human, to forgive divine.” (Alexander Pope)
• “Give every man thy ear, but few thy voice.” (William Shakespeare)

Conceptual Antithesis

Conceptual Antithesis, on the other hand, does not rely on wordplay or linguistic contrasts. Instead, it focuses on presenting contrasting concepts or ideas in a larger context, such as within a narrative, argument, or theme.

This type of antithesis often involves juxtaposing characters, situations, or themes to highlight their differences and create tension or conflict. Examples can be found in various forms of literature and art, including:

• The opposing forces of good and evil in many religious texts.
• The conflicting moral perspectives in novels, such as in “To Kill a Mockingbird,” where Atticus Finch’s defense of Tom Robinson contrasts with the racism of the townspeople.
• The clashing beliefs and values in philosophical debates, like those between Socrates and the Sophists in ancient Greece.

Examples in Literature

Antithesis is a powerful literary device that writers have employed to create memorable works of poetry, prose, and drama. The use of antithesis not only heightens tension and deepens meaning within literature but it also heightens the reader’s experience and understanding.

Shakespeare

Known for his command of language, Shakespeare often employed antithesis in his plays and sonnets. One of the most famous examples is found in Hamlet’s soliloquy:

In this instance, the contrasting ideas of “ being ” and “not being” emphasize the central conflict of Hamlet’s character and the existential questions he grapples with throughout the play.

Charles Dickens

Antithesis can also be found in the opening lines of Charles Dickens’ celebrated novel, A Tale of Two Cities :

Dickens’ pairing of opposites establishes the novel’s social and political setting, which is characterized by paradoxical contrasts and deep divisions among the characters.

Jane Austen

Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice utilizes antithesis to highlight the differing perspectives of its main characters, Elizabeth Bennet and Mr. Darcy. Consider the following line:

This statement juxtaposes the idea of universal truth and personal desire, reflecting the novel’s themes of social expectations and individual choices.

Robert Frost

The celebrated poet Robert Frost deftly utilized antithesis in his work, such as in the poem Fire and Ice :

With the contrast between “ fire ” and “ ice ,” Frost explores the dual destructive forces of passion and indifference in human nature.

Examples in Speeches

Antithesis not only adds stylistic flair to speeches, but also enhances their rhetorical impact and persuasive effect. Below are examples from some famous speeches that demonstrate the use of antithesis.

Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address is considered one of the most powerful and well-crafted speeches in history. One effective example of antithesis in this speech is:

Lincoln contrasts words and actions, emphasizing the sacrificial deeds of the soldiers.

Winston Churchill

Winston Churchill’s speeches during World War II showcased his strong rhetorical skills. An example of antithesis in his famous Iron Curtain speech is:

Here, the physical location contrasts with the figurative iron curtain, underlining the division of eastern and western Europe.

Martin Luther King Jr.

In Martin Luther King Jr.’s I Have a Dream speech, he utilized antithesis to communicate his vision for a more inclusive and equal society. An example is:

King juxtaposes skin color and character, highlighting the content of one’s character as the more important factor for judgment.

John F. Kennedy

John F. Kennedy’s Inaugural Address also contains a well-known example of antithesis:

This statement reverses the expectations of the listener, placing emphasis on the civic responsibilities of citizens rather than government assistance.

Tips and Tricks: Mastering the Use of Antithesis

Mastering the use of antithesis can greatly enhance the effectiveness of writing and speech. In this section, we will discuss practical advice for incorporating antithesis effectively and ways to avoid common pitfalls.

Identifying Contrasting Ideas

Antithesis relies on the presentation of contrasting ideas to create emphasis and interest. To use this device effectively, one must first identify clear and meaningful contrasting ideas. Here are some suggestions:

• Consider the theme or topic of your writing or speech, and think about opposing viewpoints.
• Keep the contrasting ideas relevant to the central message.
• Identify contrasts in characterization, situation, or opinion.

Using Parallel Structures

Parallelism is a crucial aspect of using antithesis effectively. It serves to create balance and clarity in the presentation of contrasting ideas. To ensure parallelism:

• Identify the grammatical structure of the first half of the antithesis and maintain the same structure in the second half.
• Use similar syntax, word order, and punctuation to create a sense of symmetry.
• Maintain consistency in verb tense, voice, and mood throughout the antithesis.

Taking care to identify strong contrasting ideas and maintaining parallelism in the presentation of those ideas will ensure that antithesis is used effectively in writing and speech.

A Rich Tapestry: Related Terms and Concepts

In order to expand our understanding of antithesis, it is helpful to explore related rhetorical devices, such as oxymoron, paradox, and chiasmus. These terms may appear to be similar, but they each have distinct characteristics and functions within the realm of rhetoric and language:

An oxymoron occurs when two contradictory terms are placed side by side to form a new meaning. Examples of oxymorons include “deafening silence” and “bittersweet.”

A paradox is a statement or situation that seems to be contradictory but holds an element of truth. For instance, “less is more” and “I know that I know nothing” are paradoxical statements that reveal deeper truths.

Chiasmus involves the reversal of parallel grammatical structures, creating a crisscross pattern in a sentence or phrase. An example of chiasmus would be “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.”

While these devices share the common trait of using contrast, their mechanisms and effects differ.

• In antithesis , opposing ideas are juxtaposed to emphasize the differences between them. For example, “To err is human; to forgive, divine.”
• Oxymoron is a condensed form of antithesis. It also focuses on contrast, but it conveys the opposing ideas through adjacent words rather than phrases or clauses.
• Paradox appears self-contradictory, but provides deeper insight upon closer examination. Unlike antithesis, which highlights the contrast between ideas, paradox seeks to reconcile the contradiction to reveal an underlying truth.
• Chiasmus creates a mirror-like structure in which elements are repeated in reverse order. While its primary function is to create balance and harmony, it can also be used to emphasize contrast, much like antithesis.

Case Studies: Analyzing the Use of Antithesis in Different Contexts

In this section, we will explore the use of antithesis in different fields including politics, advertising, and everyday conversation.

This rhetorical device is an effective means of creating a contrast to emphasize a particular point, and while it may be more commonly associated with literature and poetry, antithesis can be found throughout various forms of communication.

Politicians often use antithesis to draw attention to contrasting ideas and to emphasize their viewpoints.

For example, in his 1961 inaugural address, President John F. Kennedy employed antithesis when he urged Americans to:

By contrasting the individual’s responsibility toward their nation with the nation’s responsibility toward its citizens, Kennedy emphasized the significance of civic duty and personal responsibility in shaping the country’s future.

Advertising

In the world of advertising, antithesis is often used to create memorable slogans and to emphasize the unique selling points of a product or service. For example, a famous Mercedes-Benz tagline reads:

The contrasting phrases emphasize the idea that Mercedes-Benz automobiles stand out from the competition due to their engineering excellence. Such juxtaposition of opposing ideas helps reinforce the brand message and make it more memorable to potential consumers.

Everyday Conversation

Antithesis can also be found in our everyday conversations as it helps us emphasize contrasts, express humor, or simply make a point more clearly.

A common use of antithesis is in expressions like “ I t was the best of times, it was the worst of times,” taken from Charles Dickens’ A Tale of Two Cities . We also encounter antithesis when people use expressions like “You’re either with us, or against us,” highlighting the lack of middle ground in a situation.

These examples demonstrate how contrasting ideas, skillfully articulated through antithesis, can add depth and meaning to our daily interactions.

Understanding the Downside of Antithesis

While the use of antithesis can be an effective rhetorical strategy, it has certain drawbacks that are worth considering:

The Oversimplification Trap

One of the main concerns is the potential for oversimplification. When presenting two contrasting ideas, it can be easy to reduce complex issues into a simplistic binary choice, which may ignore important nuances.

Beware of False Dichotomies

Another downside is the risk of creating false dichotomies. In some cases, the use of antithesis may unintentionally reinforce the idea that only two opposing options exist, when in reality, alternative solutions or perspectives may be available. This can lead to limited critical thinking and hinder the exploration of other viewpoints.

Misrepresentation and Distortion

Additionally, the emphasis on opposition in antithesis can sometimes lead to a misrepresentation of the ideas being contrasted. The need to create a stark difference can encourage exaggeration or distortion of the original concepts, thereby weakening the overall argument.

Overuse: Striking a Balance

Lastly, overuse of antithesis can detract from the primary message of an argument or a text, by drawing attention away from the main points and focusing on the contrasts alone. As with any rhetorical device, moderation and careful consideration should be employed when using antithesis to communicate effectively.

Overuse and Misuse of Antithesis

While antithesis can be a powerful rhetorical device, it is essential to understand the potential pitfalls of overusing or misusing it in writing or speech.

• An overuse of antithesis may lead to the loss of its impact and may obscure the intended message.
• An misuse of antithesis can result in weak or illogical arguments.

Overuse Issues

One issue with the overuse of antithesis is that it can become repetitive and predictable. Similar to other rhetorical devices, antithesis works best when used sparingly and with purpose. Overusing antithesis can make the text monotonous and tedious to read, thus undermining the effectiveness of the arguments being presented.

Misuse Issues

When antithesis is misused, it can lead to the creation of false dichotomies or straw man arguments.

This occurs when a writer or speaker presents two opposing viewpoints in an attempt to create a strong contrast, but it ends up oversimplifying or misrepresenting the actual positions being debated. This weakens the overall argument and can make the writer or speaker seem less credible.

How to Avoid Them

To avoid overuse and misuse of antithesis, follow these guidelines:

• Use antithesis purposefully and strategically to emphasize a particular point.
• Be selective in the number of antitheses used in a piece of writing or speech to maintain effectiveness.
• Ensure that the contrasting ideas presented in the antithesis accurately represent the viewpoints being discussed.
• Avoid creating false dichotomies or straw man arguments by carefully examining the opposing ideas for nuances and common ground.

By adhering to these principles, writers, and speakers can utilize antithesis effectively, adding depth and impact to their arguments without sacrificing credibility.

Pros and Cons of Antithesis

Antithesis, a rhetorical device where opposing ideas are contrasted or balanced within a sentence or a phrase, is often employed to create emphasis and depth in writing. However, it has both advantages and disadvantages that writers should be aware of.

Pros of Antithesis:

• Emphasis on Key Points: Antithesis highlights the contrast between two opposing ideas or concepts, making it easier for the reader to focus on and understand the critical points.
• Stylistic Appeal: The use of antithesis adds an elegant and sophisticated touch to the writing, making it more engaging and thought-provoking for the reader.
• Memorability: By creating a distinct contrast, antithesis helps to make ideas or phrases more memorable, making the overall message of the text more likely to resonate with the audience.

Cons of Antithesis:

• Risk of Oversimplification: Antithesis can sometimes reduce complex ideas or issues to overly simplistic binaries, which may not fully represent the intricacies and nuances involved.
• Potential for Confusion: The contrast between opposing ideas may be difficult for some readers to comprehend, leading to potential misunderstandings or confusion.
• Overuse: Excessive use of antithesis in a piece of writing may make the text feel repetitive and heavy-handed, lessening the overall impact and effectiveness of the rhetorical device.

Writers can harness the strengths of antithesis by using it judiciously and avoiding overuse, ensuring that it adds value and depth to their work without compromising its integrity or clarity.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is antithesis effective in persuasion.

Yes, antithesis can be an effective persuasion tool. In political speeches and other forms of rhetoric, the use of antithesis is often employed to highlight the contrasts between opposing viewpoints or ideologies, making the argument or position more compelling.

Can antithesis be used in a simile or metaphor?

Antithesis can be incorporated into similes and metaphors to enhance their impact. While the purpose of a simile or metaphor is to make a comparison, using antithesis can further emphasize the primary differences between the compared elements.

Can antithesis be overused?

As with any literary device, antithesis can lose its effectiveness if overused. Employing antithesis sparingly and strategically ensures that its purpose is clear and that it contributes to the overall impact and meaning of the text.

Antithesis, as a rhetorical device, has been a powerful tool in language and literature. It is characterized by contrasting two opposing ideas or phrases, typically within parallel structures. This technique effectively highlights the differences and creates a balanced yet opposing relationship between ideas, drawing the attention of the reader or audience.

Examples of antithesis can be found in various forms of literature, including speeches, poetry, and prose.

These works serve as testimony to the enduring influence and significance of antithesis in shaping ideas and engaging readers.

Experimenting with antithesis in one’s own writing and communication can lead to a deeper understanding of texts and a more engaging style. By employing opposing ideas and parallel structures, writers and speakers can create memorable expressions, emphasize contrasting concepts, and provoke thought and discussion.

Whether used artfully in literature or strategically in rhetoric, antithesis remains an essential technique to master for effective communication. Embracing its potential can enhance the clarity and impact of ideas, leaving a lasting impression on readers and audiences alike.

How useful was this post?

Click on a star to rate it!

As you found this post useful...

Share it on social media!

We are sorry that this post was not useful for you!

Let us improve this post!

Tell us how we can improve this post?

Jessa Claire

• Grace Chapel, TN
• A Puritan’s Mind
• Puritan Publications

Apologetics

At war with the word: the necessity of biblical antithesis by greg l. bahnsen.

The following discussion is an excerpt from the 1987 Van Til Lectures, delivered by Dr. Bahnsen at Westminster Seminary, Philadelphia.

The antithesis between followers of God and followers of Satan is sovereignly inflicted as God’s judicial curse. This enmity is not only social but also intellectual in nature, and, therefore, to ignore it in our apologetic is to compromise the gospel. Without the ingredient of antithesis, Christianity is not simply anemic, it has altogether forfeited its challenge to all other worldviews. Anyone who is familiar with the corpus of Van Til’s publications and writings will recognize that the subject of antithesis is one fitting hallmark of his scholarly contribution to twentieth century apologetical theory. Contents

Antithesis in Van Til’s Apologetic

1. The Antithesis is Crucial to the Biblical Understanding of Man

A. The Biblical Narrative B. The Significance for Apologetics

2. But Modern Thought Disregards and Disdains the Antithesis 3. The Systematic Nature of Antithesis 4. Antithesis in Apologetic Method 5. Unbelievers Eventually at War With the Word Conclusion Notes

It was in the interest of antithesis that Van Til wrote his first major classroom syllabus, now entitled A Survey of Christian Epistemology, stating that, “It is necessary to become clearly aware of the deep antithesis between the two main types of epistemology,” Christian and non-Christian.[1] It was in the interest of antithesis that Van Til published his first major book on the “Crisis Theology” of Barth and Brunner, entitled The New Modernism, hoping to alert the Christian church to the fact that Barth’s dialectical theology was fundamentally one with modernistic theology — and that “the new Modernism and the old alike are destructive of historic Christian theism and with it of the significant meaning of human experience.”[2]

It was with the interest of a proper understanding of antithesis that Van Til, in the next year, published his second book on the subject of Common Grace, where the fundamental premise was that “the believer and the non-believer differ at the outset of every self-conscious investigation.”[3] And perhaps the most memorable section of Van Til’s basic text in apologetics, The Defense of the Faith, is precisely his treatment of the mock dialogue in which Mr. Grey, the evangelical apologist, does not appreciate, to his detriment, the significance of the philosophical antithesis between belief and unbelief.[4]

This theme of the principial, epistemological and ethical antithesis between the regenerate, Bible-directed mind of the Christian and the autonomous mind of the sinner (whether expressed by the avowed unbeliever or by the unorthodox modern theologian), remained part of Van Til’s distinctive teaching throughout his career. Indeed, his festschrift bears the pertinent title Jerusalem and Athens — based on Tertullian’s famous antithetical quip “what indeed has Athens to do with Jerusalem? What concord is there between the Academy and the Church?”

In his own essay for that volume, entitled “My Credo,” Van Til condensed his conception of apologetics, guided by the thought of antithesis, into a concluding summary, where he wrote:

My own proposal, therefore, for a consistently Christian methodology of apologetics is this… That we no longer make an appeal to “common notions” which the Christian and non-Christian agree on, but to the “common ground” which they actually have because man and his world are what Scripture says they are. That we… set the non-Christian principle of the rational autonomy of man against the Christian principle of the dependence of man’s knowledge on God’s knowledge as revealed in the person and by the Spirit of Christ. That we claim, therefore, that Christianity alone is reasonable for men to hold…That we argue, therefore, by “presupposition.”[5]

The aim of the present discussion is to address the subject of the antithetical nature of Christianity and its significance for apologetics. It was one of the burdens of Van Til’s later work, Toward a Reformed Apologetics, to urge Reformed apologists not to be philosophical (or speculative) first, then Biblical afterwards. Rather, said Van Til, if we would be true to the Christ of the Scriptures, we must first listen to his word in the Bible and from that starting point proceed to think through all philosophical issues. Van Til ended this pamphlet with these words:

Rather than wedding Christianity to the philosophies of Aristotle or Kant, we must openly challenge the apostate philosophic constructions of men by which they seek to suppress the truth about God themselves, and the world…It is only if we demand of men complete submission to the living Christ of the Scriptures in every area of their lives that we have presented to men the claims of the Lord Christ without compromise. It is only then that we are truly Biblical first and speculative afterwards. Only then are we working toward a Reformed apologetic.[6]

Following Van Til’s exhortation, I will begin with a survey of the Biblical view of the antithesis between believer and unbeliever. 1. The Antithesis is Crucial to the Biblical Understanding of Man A. The Biblical Narrative

1. Geneis 3:15 — We read in this verse, “I will put enmity between you [Satan] and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he shall bruise your head, and you will bruise his heel.” A correct view of man, his historical setting and problem, and God’s resultant relationship to man is tied up with the Biblical presentation of man’s Fall and God’s response to it. Genesis 3:15 is often designated the protoevangelium, the first proclamation of good news for man’s salvation. However, that good news of the victorious confrontation of the Saviour with Satan cannot be understood except against the background of what precedes it. There is preceding it, of course, (1) the fact that man’s guilty conscience created alienation between him and his wife, as well as a desire to flee from the presence of God (vv. 7-8), and (2) the fact that God’s curse was pronounced against the serpent precisely because he dared to beguile man into repudiating the self-establishing authority of God’s word (v.14). Both of these facts point to the spiritual antithesis inherent in the present human situation.

But more pointedly, the antithesis is explicitly declared by God in verse fifteen, where He said that He “will put enmity” between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent — between the children of God (who are united with their Savior, the Messiah: cf. Gal. 3:16,29) and the children of the devil (cf. John 8:44). It is worth noting that the emphasis falls upon the word “enmity” as the first word in the Hebrew of Genesis 3:15 (“Enmity will I put”). And God himself is said to constitute, establish, and deliberately impose this enmity between men.

The opposition and antithesis between followers of God and followers of Satan is not simply predicted by God and is not simply commanded; it is sovereignly inflicted as God’s judicial curse. The distinction and antipathy between the two seeds must and indeed will be maintained. Only in that light do we properly understand and hope in the Messiah’s crushing defeat of the tempter. Were that antithesis disregarded, diluted or dispelled, the very meaning of the gospel of salvation would be lost — either by consigning all men indiscriminately to the perdition of Satan, or by neglecting the discriminating love of God, which Paul says in Colossians 1:13, “delivered us out of the power of darkness and transferred us into the kingdom of His beloved son.”

The entire Biblical message of redemption and the historical establishing of God’s kingdom both presuppose “the antithesis,” then, between the people of God and the culture of unbelief, between the regenerate and the unregenerate. Therefore, throughout history Satan has tempted God’s people to compromise “the antithesis” — whether by intermingling in ungodly marriages (Gen. 5:2), or by showing unwarranted tolerance toward the enemies of God (Joshua 23:11-13; Judges 1:21,27-36; Ps 106:34-35), or by departing from the authority of God’s word so that “every man does what is right in his own eyes,” (Judges 21:25), by committing spiritual adultery with other gods (e.g. Ps. 106:36,39; Hosea 2:2-13, 4:12; Exek. 16:15-25), by trusting in some power other than God (e.g. Kings 18:21; Chron. 16: 7-9; Isa 30:7, 31:1; Ezek 16:26-29), or by repudiating the Messiah along with the world (John 1:10-11), or by bowing the knee both to Christ and to Caesar (cf. Acts 17:7; Rev 13:8,11-17).

In fact, Satan even dared to tempt Jesus, the Son of God, to achieve God’s ends by compromising the antithesis with Satan himself. In Matt 4:8-10, you remember how Satan showed Jesus the kingdoms of the world, and he said all of them would belong to Jesus if He would just bow his knee to Satan. (Of course, they belonged to Jesus anyway. Satan was proposing a shortcut.) So if we would live up to Paul’s assessment that Christians “are not ignorant of his [Satan’s] devices” (II Corinthians 2:11), then we must be sure not to ignore the tempter’s persistent device of suggesting that we can tone down or disregard the antithesis which God has imposed between His people and the world.

2. Genesis 4 — In the fourth chapter of Genesis, we read that Cain murdered his brother, Abel, because God had respect unto Abel’s offering instead of Cain’s. The antagonism between those who please God and those who do not was already at work then in human history. And John tells us specifically that this event illustrated the enmity which arises between the two seeds, for he says, “Cain was of the evil one.” He was of the seed of the serpent, and he slew his brother precisely “because his works were evil and his brother’s righteous” (I John 3:12).

3. Subsequent Portions of Genesis — The antithesis continues to be pressed in the literature of the Bible as the descendants of Cain and their accompanying culture are now distinguished from those of Seth in the fourth Chapter of Genesis. The family of Noah is set apart from the rest of mankind for preservation through the flood in Genesis 5-9. The seed of Shem is set apart from the seed of his brothers in Genesis 10. The ungodly attempt to unify all mankind at the tower of Babel is thwarted by God in Genesis 11. Abraham and his seed are specifically chosen out of all the other families of the earth in Genesis 12-15. The line of Isaac is chosen over that of Ishmael in Genesis 16-18. The line of Jacob is chosen over that of Esau in Genesis 25.

4. Exodus through Joshua — Eventually the children of Israel are called out of the land of Egypt, as the Book of Exodus shows us, to displace the Canaanite tribes and be established as a holy people unto God (as we read in the Book of Joshua).

Accompanying these Biblical stories, we read repeatedly of the hostility which exists between God’s children and those of the world. We see this whether we look at Ishmael’s persecuting mockery of Isaac in Gen 21:9 (cf. Gal 4:29) or Pharoah’s harsh and murderous oppression of the Jewish slaves in Exod. 1:18-22 (cf. Heb. 11:23-27), or Israel’s military campaigns against Canaan’s abominable places of worship in Deuteronomy 7:24-25, 12:2-3.

5. The Psalms and Prophetic Literature — The theme of antithesis thus runs through the Biblical drama like a subtle, unifying thread. We hear the theme of antithesis in the imprecatory psalms against God’s enemies, and in the prophetic denunciation of the nations, especially against the ruthless empires of Assyria and Babylon which took God’s chosen people into captivity.

6. The Law — The necessity of living in terms of “the antithesis” is buttressed by the Mosaic laws’ demand that God’s chosen people be a “holy” people, separated from pagan unbelief and practices (e.g. Leviticus 11:44-45; I Pet 1:15-16). On this basis Peter says in the New Testament that we are to be sanctified in all manner of living. It was reiterated in the call of the prophets to “come out from among them and be separate” and “touch no unclean thing,” (Isa 52:11; Jer 31:1), which is quoted by Paul in II Corinthians 6:17-7:1. We’re to be cleansed from all defilement of flesh and spirit. Now both of these moral injunctions assume and endorse an antithesis between the lifestyle of believers and unbelievers, and both injunctions are repeated for us in the New Testament. We had better take them seriously.

7. The New Testament — In the New Testament we see further evidence of, and a demand for, the antithesis between the church and the world. Jesus emphasized and called for a clear observation of that antithesis when He proclaimed “he who is not with me is against me.” (Matt. 12:30), because, he said, “no man can serve two masters” (Matt. 6:24). And Jesus identified “the enemy,” (that language is conspicuous), the enemy of the Kingdom (Matt. 13:39), as Satan. Peter called him the believer’s “adversary” (I Pet. 5:8).

And Paul utilized military imagery to rouse us to withstand the principalities and powers and spiritual hosts of wickedness (Eph 6:10-17). There is, according to the New Testament outlook, clearly a hostile encounter taking place in the world.

A graphic illustration of the antithesis, or enmity, between the seed of the serpent and the seed which belongs to God, is found in the account of Elymas the sorcerer, whom Paul denounced as “a son of the devil,” because he “opposed” the apostles by trying to turn aside Sergius Paulus from the faith, and by always “perverting the right ways of the Lord” (Acts 13).

We must call Genesis 3:15 to mind again when Jesus calls those who oppose the kingdom of God, “the sons of the evil one” (Matt. 13:38), and when Paul identifies them as the “enemies” of Christ’s cross who mind earthly things, in contrast to the Christians’ heavenly citizenship (Phil.3:18-20).

The apostle John reinforces the necessity of the antithesis by issuing the following command to believers in I John 2:15: “Love not the world…If any man loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him.” And James drives home the antithesis pungently by declaring, “whoever would be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God” (James 4:4).

To end our short survey, we can finally observe that the antithesis will, once and for all, be ultimately confirmed by the eternal separation of all men into either heaven or hell, as Jesus taught in Matthew 25:31-33,40. B. The Significance for Apologetics

The primary significance for apologetics of the Biblical teaching that there is a fundamental, everlasting and irreconcilable antithesis between the regenerate and unregenerate is found in the observation that this antithesis applies just as much to the mental life and conduct of men as it does to their other affairs. The “enmity” between Satan’s seed and God’s seed which is seminally spoken of in Genesis 3:15 is intellectual in nature, as well as social, or familial, or economic, or military, or political, or what have you.

Consider the words of Paul in Romans 8:7: “the mind of the flesh is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can it be.” The mentality of those who are unregenerate (those who are in the flesh) cannot subject itself to the truth of God’s Word. There is, then, no peace between the mindset of the unbeliever and the mind of God (which believers seek to reflect, cf. John 15:15; I Cor. 2:16). They are rather at “enmity” with each other.

Paul similarly describes the unregenerate, unreconciled spiritual condition of unbelievers in Colossians 1:21, when he says “they are alienated and enemies in their mind” (enemies in their mind) against God. The “enmity” is specifically one which is worked out “in the mind” or thinking of the unbeliever. The unbeliever is unable to be subject to the law’s greatest command, which is to “love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all of your soul and with all of your mind” (Matt. 22:36-37). Instead, the unbeliever “hates the wisdom and instruction” of God, as Proverbs 1:7 puts it. Although the fear of the Lord is the beginning — the very starting point — of knowledge, there is no fear of God before the unbeliever’s eyes (Rom 3:18). He is, as such, kept from realizing any of the “treasures of wisdom and knowledge” which are deposited in Christ. (Colossians 2:3) The unbeliever’s intellectual enmity against God is simultaneously his epistemological undoing.

Paul concisely lays out the epistemological enmity of which we are speaking, and he plainly points to its consequences, in Colossians 2:8 — “take heed, lest anyone rob you [that is, rob you of the wisdom of the treasures of knowledge spoken of in verse three preceding] through his philosophy, even vain deceit, which is after the traditions of men, after the rudimentary assumptions of the world, and not after Christ.” Here, Paul sets a philosophy which is “after Christ” in antithesis to one that is “after worldly” presuppositions (his word is “rudiments”: the elementary principles of learning) and human traditions. And Paul says that the latter will have the effect of depriving those who maintain it of knowledge. Those who “suppress the truth in unrighteousness,” are not only “without excuse” for their line of reasoning, but they also become “vain in their reasoning, their senseless hearts being darkened” (Rom 1:18,20-21).’ Unbelieving philosophy is not “philosophy”, (etymologically “the love of wisdom”) at all. The arguments of unregenerate men against the Christian faith are thus only “the oppositions of knowledge falsely-so-called” (I Tim 6:20), the foolish reasoning of those “that oppose themselves” (II Tim 2:25) in the process of prosecuting their enmity or hostility against God.

Now the apologist must realize these implications and thereby seek to expose the utter epistomologetical futility of the unbeliever’s reasoning. Paul’s challenge was this : “Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?” (I Cor. 1:20). It was his conviction that, because the unregenerate mind is at enmity with God s Word and Spirit — and thus also with the thinking of God’s people who are “renewed in the spirit of their minds” (Ephesians 4:23) — unbelievers, whether they are scholars or not, “walk in the vanity of their mind, being darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God, because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the hardening of their hearts.” If ever there was an indictment, line after line, Paul gives it in Ephesians 4:17-18.

The defender of the faith who is faithful to the Biblical faith he defends, will not seek to abandon or diminish the crucial antithesis which exists between the philosophical reasoning of the regenerate mind and the self-destructive reasoning of the unregenerate mind. He will, as Paul says in II Corinthians 10:5, “cast down reasonings and every lofty thing exalted against the knowledge of God, taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ.” The antithesis must be central and indispensable to the work of the apologist as an ambassador for Christ in the intellectual arena, who beseeches men to be reconciled to God (II Corinthians 5:20). 2. But Modern Thought Disregards and Disdains the Antithesis

The spirit of our age or culture, however, is not only antithetical to the perspective of God’s Spirit as generally revealed in the Scriptures; it is in particular antithetical to the Biblical view of antithesis itself. The enmity or antithesis between the regenerate and unregenerate mind, as presaging the final antithesis of heaven and hell is renounced by the modern spirit in the hope that all the world might some day “live as one.”

This erasing of the antithesis was the motivating theme and arousing sentiment of the song popularized by ex-Beatle John Lennon, in which he proposed, “Imagine there’s no heaven; it’s easy if you try, no hell below us, above us only sky. Imagine all the people living for today.” The song went on to preach that we should imagine that there is no country, no possessions, and “no religion too” — so that we might finally achieve a “brotherhood of man” where any and all antithesis, especially that proclaimed by the Bible, will be eliminated forever in a social, political, economical and religious monism of perpetual peace. It all begins, sings the modern siren, by imagining that there is no heaven and no hell. The God-ordained antithesis must not be conceded.

Even where the expression of the modern spirit is not as pronounced or poetic as John Lennon’s song, we see the subtle disregard for the Biblical antithesis exhibited around us everyday in the media. The contemporary spirit is one of egalitarian democracy and enlightened tolerance, and these attributes are nothing if not meant to be all encompassing. It is not enough that political democracy permits one to believe as he sees fit; there is as well the “epistemological democracy” which insists that no belief-system is inherently superior to any other.

The Biblical antithesis between light and darkness, between God-honoring wisdom and God-defying foolishness, between the mind of the Spirit and the mind of the flesh is an offense to the modern mentality. Nobody has the warrant to deem his perspective as more authoritative or imbued with any special epistemological privilege over others. All philosophical points of view must be rendered equal honor as worthy of our attention and having something worthwhile to contribute to our thinking. We must respect each other.

Accordingly, our age is characterized by intellectual pluralism and the spirit of rapprochement, not at all by a recognition of, or a regard for, a categorical antithesis between Christian and non-Christian viewpoints.

The result of neglecting the God-ordained perspectival antithesis between Christianity and the world is, as one might naturally expect, a failure of nerve in maintaining any distinctive and unqualified religious truth, a truth which would stand out clearly against every view which falls short of it or runs counter to it. “Nobody is wrong if everybody is right” has become the unwitting operating premise of modern theology.

The cognitive agnosticism of post-Kantian religious thought precludes identifying any clear-cut line of demarcation between truth and error — and renders the advocating of one a disreputable social faux pas’. Modern theology is, accordingly, simply loath to press the fundamental antithesis between scholarship which submits to the revealed word of God and autonomous reasoning which either ignores or denies it. The inevitable result of suppressing this antithesis is that Christian theology loses its basic character and joins hands with what should be its very opposite: religious relativism. That is what has transpired in our age of anti-antithesis. For instance, there are no genuine “heretics” in the thinking of modern theologians — for the same reason there are no citations for indecent exposure in a nudist colony: viz., the preconditions for making those charges simply do not hold.

This is candidly illustrated by the text which I consider the most thorough and descriptively competent survey available for contemporary theology and philosophy of religion, one that was written by no less a scholar than the Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity in the University of Oxford. In his book, Twentieth Century Religious Thought, John Macquarrie demonstrates a remarkable familiarity with the wide-ranging scope of philosophical trends which have interfaced with religious reflection since 1900.

Macquarrie has undoubtedly mastered the field of modern theological thought, and admittedly his insights and evaluations of particular themes or particular authors are often beneficial. But what has Macquarrie learned from all this? What conclusion would he draw from his study of twentieth-century religious thought? He is quite open about that matter in his chapter on “Concluding Comments” in the first subsection, entitled, “Some Findings and Suggestions.” The Oxford scholar writes:

Our survey, however, has undoubtedly pointed us in the direction of a degree of relativism. Absolute and final truth on the questions of religion is just unattainable…Although absolute truth is denied us, we can have partial insights of varying degrees of adequacy, glimpses that would make us less forlorn…

What we are driving at is that just as we have no absolute answers, so we have no absolute questions, in which everything would be noticed at once. Only God could ask or answer such questions. Our questions arise out of our situation, and both questions and answers are relative to that situation. This need not distress us for it could not be otherwise — it is part of what it means to be finite.

[We] have seen, there are many possible ways of understanding religion, and…no one way is likely to be the final truth…This is the situation in which finite man has got to make up his mind — an agonizing situation, if you like but also a challenging and adventurous one. So Kierkegaard viewed Christianity — not as a cozy convention but as a decision to be taken and a leap to be made.[7]

Macquarrie, who I think is representative of the modern mentality, is unwilling to countenance the radical antithesis (the God-imposed enmity) between belief grounded in God’s holy Word and unbelief. At best he sees the theological situation as a “dialogue among free men” who, adrift together in religious relativism and uncertainty, must make an adventuresome “leap” of faith since there is no “final truth” regarding religion for us or finite creatures whose thinking is dependent upon our local situation. Of course, as Macquarrie recognizes, God himself might provide “absolute answers” which would lift us above our human limitations. And Macquarrie is well aware that, “some theologians talk of a divine revelation to which they have access,” but then he promptly dismisses that “dogmatic and arrogant” perspective (due to difficulties connected with interpreting the revelation).

The farce in all this, I hope, is only too apparent. Macquarrie himself is no less dogmatic and arrogant in pronouncing that “absolute and final truth” on religious questions is “just unattainable.” He is absolute in his declaration that nothing is absolute! On the question of religious insight, Macquarrie s own final truth is that there can be no final truth. This flagrant contradiction complements the subtle, but just as real, contradiction in his statement that “varying degrees of adequacy” can be recognized in different religious insights, despite the fact that “absolute truth” is denied us. When a final truth or religious standard is ruled out, on what basis could anyone judge the “degree” of approximation to the truth in any proposed religious idea? What kind of “adequacy” does Macquarrie expect religious insights to achieve, if not adequacy regarding their veracity? (Is it a religious truth that truth is irrelevant to religious adequacy?) The modern mind prefers such unpardonable lapses of intellectual cogency to the fearsome antithesis which an absolute divine revelation would represent and necessitate.

Dr. Van Til taught us that the tendency toward irrationalism in modern thought (the tendency toward skepticism, uncertainty, relativism, the acceptance of incoherence) is in fact allied with the tendency toward autonomous rationalism in modern thought (the tendency to exalt man’s natural intellect as a final judge using the standards of logic and science). The reflective modern man wants it both ways: his intellect is adequate and authoritative, but not really adequate enough or finally authoritative. The arrogant demands of rationalism are counter-balanced by the humble concessions of irrationalism, and then the humble misgivings of irrationalism are shored up by the assurances of rationalism. Van Til pointed out that, ironically, the two tendencies toward rationalism and irrationalism actually call for each other:

There is nothing surprising in the fact that modern man is both utterly irrationalist and utterly rationalist at the same time. He has to be both in order to be either. And he has to be both in order to defend his basic assumption of his own freedom or ultimacy…The determinists and rationalists are what they are in the interest of defending the same autonomy of freedom of man that the indeterminists and rationalists are defending[8]

The non-Christian presupposes a dialectic between “chance” and “regularity,” the former accounting for the origin of matter and life, the latter accounting for the current success of the scientific enterprise…The non-Christian…attempts nevertheless to use “logic” to destroy the Christian position. On the one hand, appealing to the non-rationality of “matter,” he says that the chance-character of “facts” is conclusive evidence against the Christian position. Then, on the other hand, he maintains like Parmenides that the Christian story cannot possibly be true. Man must be autonomous, “logic” must be legislative as to the field of “possibility,” and possibility must be above God[9]

And this is precisely what we see in the example of Dr. Macquarrie. Leaning toward irrationalism, he rules out absolute or final truth in religion, affirms that all of our questions and answers are relative, says we must be content with a leap of faith, and settles for glaring contradictions in the course of telling us so. He then turns around on the very next page and asserts an autonomous rationalism as his intellectual guide:

Our understanding of religion should be a reasonable one. By this is not meant that some conclusive proof is to be given, for we have already rejected the possibility of absolute certitude…In asking for a reasonable understanding of religion, we simply mean that it should involve no sacrificium intellectus, no flagrant contradictions, no violation of natural reason, no conflict with what we believe about the world on scientific or common-sense grounds.[10]

This conspicuous exhibition of the rational-irrational tension in the thinking of a learned, modern thinker is pertinent to our subject matter in this discussion, for we can discern here the same suppression of antithesis on both sides of Macquarrie’s dialectic. On the irrationalist side, there can be no antithesis between divine truth and rebellious unbelief, for all religious insights are relative; all men are together in the same situation: a common dialogue where final and absolute truth is unattainable. Likewise, on the rationalist side of the dialectic, there can be no antithesis between divine truth and rebellious unbelief, for (again) all men are together in the same situation: refusing to sacrifice the autonomy of their “intellect,” honoring the demands of “natural” reason and “common” sense, and never believing anything contrary to what “we” (any man) believe(s) about the world on the basis of (generic) “science.” All men alike, whether servants or enemies of Jesus Christ, are lumped together by Macquarrie in his rationalist methodology (autonomous intellect is judge), even as they are lumped together in his irrationalist conclusion (there is no final truth). A fundamental religious antithesis in method and conclusion cannot be recognized by him.

A similar rejection of antithesis is found in the writings of one of the leading analytical philosophers of our age, Stephen Toulmin. In Toulmin’s The Return to Cosmology, which addresses the interplay of science and the theology of nature, Toulmin argues, in the face of the modern antagonism to the idea, that questions of the universe as a whole and man’s place in it should not be dismissed. Toulmin wants to return to comprehensive questions about the nature of the universe as a whole, to cosmological reflection which benefits from the dual input of natural science and religious philosophy.

At the very end of the book, where he discusses “The Future Cosmology,” he makes the following observation: “If there is to be a renewal of contacts between science and theology along the lines suggested here — if the cosmological presuppositions involved in talking about the overall scheme of things are to be scrutinized jointly from both sides of the fence — we shall quickly encounter some knotty problems of jurisdiction.”[11] Toulmin is sharp enough to realize that “sectarian” disagreement and doctrinal particularism stand in the way of developing an effective, common cosmology in terms of which men can agree about their place and responsibility in the universe. The cosmology whose pursuit he endorses, therefore, is one which will not offend “the natural reason” of man. In the second to last paragraph of his book he writes:

Yet does this put us in a position to claim, quite baldly, that the entire scheme of Creation by which our moral and religious ideas are to be guided is transparent to “the natural reason” without regard for the doctrinal considerations of particular religions and sects? Preachers who exhort good Christians to let their Christianity permeate all their thinking, so that they may even end up with (say a “Christian arithmetic”) invite Leibniz’s objection that arithmetic is just not like that — even God himself cannot alter, or contravene, the truths of mathematics. And, if we were told that good Christians must subscribe to a different science of ecology from other people, a parallel objection might well be pressed. God intervenes in the World (Leibniz declared) within the realm of grace, not within the realm of nature. So perhaps the time has come to take our courage in both hands, and declare for a fully common and ecumenical theology of nature.[12]

Toulmin is willing to return to cosmological thinking, just so long as any antithesis between a Christian theology of nature and any non-Christian conception is ruled out in advance. The Christian perspective is to be confined to the realm of grace, not allowed to create sectarian disputes within the realm of nature. The last thing that the modern mind is willing to accept is a distinctively Christian mathematics, a distinctively Christian natural science, a distinctively Christian anything. No special place may be afforded the Christian perspective. “The antithesis” must be removed if Christians are to dialogue with other religionists, philosophers, or scientists. Everyone must be respected for having a perspective which contributes to the rich understanding of this ultimately mysterious universe.

Toulmin immediately states that his fully ecumenical enterprise — what he calls a “theology of nature accessible to the common reason” will not bring universal support due to the intolerance of “fundamentalist theology.” But, even if it did, if all perspectives would accept the rationalist requirement of a common, autonomous intellectual method, would Toulmin’s ecumenical theology of nature prove successful? Would it bring us an assured knowledge of the grand scheme of things and man’s place in the universe? In the very last paragraph of his book, Toulmin asks, “Just how far, then, can the natural reason alone inform us in detail about what the overall scheme of things — the cosmos, or Creation — really is?” His answer (or non-answer) ends the book: “We have reached the threshold of some painfully difficult and confusing questions, but answering them is a task for the future.”[13]

Toulmin, the philosopher, has thus returned — along with the theologian Macquarrie — to the irrationalist modern tendency toward uncertainty and skepticism. The questions are so tough that nobody can really know for sure. The substitute for a distinctively Christian answer turns out to be, as always, the eschatological cop-out invoked by autonomous thought: answering the ultimate questions must ever remain a task for the future.

The modern repudiation of the antithesis between the regenerate and unregenerate minds, between the Christian worldview and its competitors, is itself (ironically) a reiteration of that very antithesis. Macquarrie’s promotion of religious relativism and Toulmin’s rejection of any distinctively Christian cosmology both take their stand over against the Christ speaking in the Scriptures. Contrary to the thesis proclaimed by Christ, the modern man asserts its anti-thesis. The God-ordained “enmity” between belief and unbelief (cf. Genesis 3:15) cannot ever be successfully overcome. In its effort to supplant it, unbelieving scholarship simply ends up supporting it.

However, that such a vain effort to eliminate antithesis between Biblical Christianity and its opponents is made by worldly scholars should come as no surprise. After all, respect for, and condoning of, that antithesis would be implicitly self-condemning. John 3:20 tells us that it is precisely an escape from God’s condemnation which unbelievers seek.

The remarkable thing is that even professedly “Christian” scholars would likewise make the vain effort to eliminate the antithesis between Biblical philosophy and unbiblical speculation.

The penchant of modern theologians and churchmen to ignore the inherent antagonism between the perspective of God’s holy word and the perspectives developed by men who suppress or dispute Biblical truth agonized Van Til to the depth of his God-fearing soul. By stressing commonality rather than conflict, such theologians surely find themselves more pleasing to men, said Van Til, but they do so at the price of coming under the displeasure of God — the God who, in the garden of Eden, Himself imposed the inescapable enmity between His people and the world.

Thus in The Great Debate Today, Van Til eschewed the lead of liberal and neo-orthodox pundits in order to follow Augustine, teaching that the “City of God” and the “city of man” stand over against one another in their total outlook with respect to the whole course of history. In the Reformed Pastor and Modern Thought,[14] Van Til argued against the apostate and man centered ecumenism of contemporary speculation — an ecumenism which, to be consistent, must acknowledge that even the radically anti-Christian proposals of Teilhard de Chardin and the God-is-dead proponents (about whom, see Van Til’s analyses in separate pamphlets from 1966), should not be kept out of the church (cf. Toward a Reformed Apologetics). In books such as The Sovereignty of Grace[15] and The New Hermeneutic,[16] Van Til warned against the synthesis between Christianity and post-Kantian thought which is the dangerous drift in the teaching of the later Berkouwer and Kuitert.

We cannot help but notice, then, that the message of antithesis is disregarded by worldly thinkers and theologians of perspectival synthesis. However, the one who above all wishes to see a dissolving of the antithesis of regenerate and unregenerate thinking in favor of synthesis, ecumenism, and a “common faith” of an autonomous or humanistic character is the one upon whom that antithesis was originally pronounced as a curse — Satan himself (cf. Genesis 3:14-15). This is, in fact, his most effective tool against the redemptive plan of God and the maturation of the Messiah’s kingdom. This is his “last, best hope” that the gates of hell might after all prevail against the church of Christ (cf. Matt. 16:18), for according to philosophical reflection which disregards the antithesis between the “two seeds,” there is in principle no necessity for a fundamental clash between the church and hell’s gates anyway. Satan gladly works through the polemics of autonomous philosophers and relativistic, ecumenical theologians to badger or tempt God’s people to compromise “the antithesis” in their reasoning and scholarship, and he would especially have us lay aside any theoretical or practical application of the fact that the unbeliever’s “enmity” against God and His people comes to expression precisely in his intellectual life or thinking. Satan does so just because the Bible’s message of redemption, as well as the historical work of Christ and His Spirit in establishing God’s kingdom, both presuppose a powerful, systematically basic and intrinsic antithesis between the cultures of regenerate and unregenerate men.

[At this point in the original lecture, Dr. Bahnsen enters into an extended critique of Francis Schaeffer’s notion of antithesis. Bahnsen argues that “one might think, then, that we would welcome any Christian scholar or writer who makes the summons back to antithesis central to his encounter with modern culture. But, this is not entirely the case. In a rather odd way, some conceptions of the antithesis can unwittingly, but, nevertheless, truly work to undermine the very antithesis which is presented in and essential to the Biblical viewpoint…this is what we find the case of Francis Schaeffer’s apologetical work and writings.”

Moreover, Bahnsen argues, Schaeffer not only offers a false conception of antithesis, but he also seriously misconstrues the nature and importance of the philosophy of Hegel. Schaeffer embarrassingly imputes various blatantly “unHegelian” views to Hegel. Christian scholarship must rise above this sort of mistake. Antithesis will publish Dr. Bahnsen’s important critique of Schaeffer in its June/July issue (Vol. I, No.3, 1990).] 3. The Systematic Nature of Antithesis

In terms of theoretical principle and eventual outworking, the unbeliever opposes the Christian faith with a whole antithetical system of thought, not simply with piecemeal criticisms. His attack is aimed, not at random points of Christian teaching, but at the very foundation of Christian thinking. The particular criticisms which are utilized by an unbeliever rest upon his basic, key assumptions which unify and inform all of his thinking. And it is this presuppositional root which the apologist must aim to eradicate, if his defense of the faith is to be truly effective.

Abraham Kuyper well understood that all men conduct their reasoning and their thinking in terms of an ultimate controlling principle — a most basic presupposition. For the unbeliever, this is a natural or naturalistic principle, in terms of which man’s thinking is taken to be intelligible without recourse to God. For the believer, it is a supernatural principle based on God’s involvement in man’s history and experience, notably in regeneration — perspective that provides the framework necessary for making sense of anything. These two ultimate commitments — call them naturalism and Christian supernaturalism — are logically incompatible and seek to cancel each other out. They must, as Kuyper argued in Principles of Sacred Theology, create “two kinds of science,” where each perspective (in principle) contradicts whatever the other perspective says and denies to it the noble name of “science.”[17] The natural principle develops its science, and the supernatural principle develops its science — and the two will not honor each other as being genuine sciences. And thus the unbeliever is bent on distorting, reinterpreting, or rejecting any evidence or argumentation which is set forth in support of, or which is controlled by, the believer’s ultimate commitment. To be consistent, the unbeliever cannot even allow for the possibility that the Christian proclamation is true.

There are two fundamentally different worldviews in terms of which men conduct their thinking and in terms of which they understand the use of reason itself.

Let’s just take that word “reason” for a moment. In the generic sense “reason” simply refers to man’s intellectual or mental capacity. Christians believe in reason, and non-Christians believe in reason; they both believe in man’s intellectual capacity. However, for each one, his view of reason and his use of reason is controlled by the worldview within which reason operates. A worldview is, very simply, a network of presuppositions which is not verified by the procedures of natural science, but in terms of which every aspect of man’s knowledge and experience is interpreted and interrelated.

The unbeliever’s worldview, according to Kuyper, is characterized by being autonomous. That is, it is characterized by self-sufficiency or an independence from outside authority, especially any transcendent authority (one that originates beyond man’s temporal experience or exceeds man’s temporal experience). The autonomous man, as Van Til puts it, wants to be “a law unto himself.” And this leads, then, to what our society calls, “secularism” or “humanism:” the view that man is the highest value, as well as the highest authority, in terms of knowledge and behavior, rather than some transcendent reality or transcendent revelation. Rationalism is humanistic or autonomous in its basic character, maintaining the general attitude that man’s autonomous reason is his final authority — in which case divine revelation may be denied or ignored in whatever area a person is studying. 4. Antithesis in Apologetic Method

Now because the unbeliever has such an implicit system of thought or worldview — an autonomous, rationalistic, secular worldview — directing his attack on the faith, the Christian can never be satisfied to defend the hope that is in him by merely stringing together isolated evidences which offer a slight probability of the Bible’s veracity. Each particular item of evidence — whether it is historical evidence as John Warwick Montgomery wants to present, or logical evidence as Alvin Plantinga wants to present, or existential evidence like Francis Schaeffer was very adept at presenting — each particular item of evidence will be evaluated by the unbeliever (as to both its truthfulness and its degree of probability) by that unbeliever’s tacit assumptions. His general world-and-life-view will provide the context in which the evidential claim is understood and weighed.

For this reason the apologetical strategy that we see illustrated in Scripture calls for argumentation at the presuppositional level. When all is said and done, it is worldviews that we need to be arguing about, not simply evidences or experiences. When Paul stood before Agrippa and offered his defense for the hope that was in him, he declared the public fact of Christ’s resurrection. We see that in Acts 26:2,6-7. There is no doubt that Paul was adamant to proclaim the public facto of the resurrection of Christ: “for the King knows of these things unto whom also I speak freely; for I am persuaded that none of these things are hidden from him, for this has not been done in the corner” (v.26). However, what you must make note of is the presuppositional groundwork and context which Paul provided for his appeal to fact. The very first point Paul endeavored to make in his defense of the faith was not an observational truth about what was a public fact, but rather a pre-observational point (something that preceded observation and is not based on observation) — a transcendental matter (about what is possible). Thus we read in verse eight: “Why is it judged impossible with you that God should raise the dead?” Paul wanted to deal first of all with the question of pre-observational worldview — what is possible and what is impossible — and in terms of that he dealt with the historical fact of Christ’s resurrection.

God was taken as the sovereign determiner of what can and what cannot happen in history. Paul then proceeded to explain that the termination of hostility to the message of the resurrection requires not that we consult more eyewitnesses, but rather requires submission to the Lordship of Jesus Christ (vv.9,15). “I verily thought with myself that I ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth…” [later] “I said, Who art thou Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecuteth.” There was an antithesis that Jesus sovereignly overcame in Paul’s life. The unbeliever, like Paul, must understand who the genuine and ultimate authority is: It is Jesus whom the unbeliever would persecute. Paul went on to explain that the message he declared called for a “radical change of mind.” That is, etymologically, what metanoeo means — the changing, the turning around of, the mind — turning from darkness to true light, from the domination of Satan to God, as Paul says in verses 18-20. The unbeliever must renounce his antagonistic reasoning and embrace a new system of thought. His mind must be turned around, and thus his presuppositional commitments must be altered.

Finally we notice that Paul placed his appeal to the fact of the resurrection within the context of Scripture’s authority to pronounce and interpret what happens in history, verses 22-23: “Having therefore obtained the help that is from God I stand unto this day testifying both to small and great, saying nothing but what the prophets and Moses did say should come: how that the Christ must suffer, and that He first by the resurrection of the dead should proclaim light both to the people and the Gentiles.” In verse 27, Paul says, “King Agrippa, do you believe the prophets?”

Paul’s apologetic did not deal with just isolated evidences. He dealt with transcendental matters (what is possible), with ultimate authority (“it is Jesus you are persecuting”), with Scripture, (“don’t you believe the prophets?”). The ultimate ground of the Christian certainty and the authority that backs up his argumentation must be the Word of God. Paul could go to the facts then, but only in terms of an undergirding philosophy of fact and in accordance with the foundational presuppositions of a Biblical epistemology.

We see that most clearly when Paul went to Athens and there met the learned unbelievers of his day — the philosophers in the capital city of philosophy, Athens. On Mars hill, (actually before the Areopagus council, I believe) Paul defended his Christian faith, as we read in Acts 17. We must make special note of what Acts 17 says. Paul pressed the antithesis, and Luke draws that to our attention.

Acts 17:16 tells us that Paul was provoked at the idolatry of that city. The citizens who heard the disputation of Paul disdained him as an intellectual scavenger, some sort of pseudo philosopher (v. 18). They called him a “seed picker,” someone who just stands around and picks up scraps here and there. “This man is no real philosopher.” And so as verse 32 tells us, in the end they mocked him. Here is Paul provoked at idolatry. Here are the idolators mocking Paul. This does not look like commonality; it looks like conflict. We need to see that Paul did not bring with him common philosophical perspectives that he shared with Plato and Aristotle, or more particularly with the Stoic and Epicurean philosophers. Rather, they saw him as bringing something “new” and something “strange,” (vv. 19, 20). It was just because they saw a difference with Paul that he was scrutinized by the Areopagus council.

When Paul appeared before the council he did not ask the philosophers to simply add a bit more information to their systems. He rather challenged the controlling presuppositions of those very systems. And as verse 30 says, he ended by calling them (as he did Agrippa) to “repentance,” to a change of mind, not just to the supplementation of what they already believed.

Paul recognized their strange religiosity, their “superstitious” ways (as verse 22 puts it). In verse 23 admittedly Paul says, “you worship what you admit is unknown.” Over against this, Paul set forth his ability to declare the divine truth against their ignorance. Consider verse 23 in Acts 17. Paul put this very antithetically: “what therefore you worship in ignorance, this I set before you,” — i.e., what you don’t know about, I have the ability, I have the position and the authority to declare to you. And when you look at what Paul said to the Areopagus council, if you have any knowledge of ancient Greek philosophy (especially that of the Stoics and Epicureans) you will notice that virtually everything Paul said stands over against the philosophical themes and premises of these schools of thought.

But now someone will say, nevertheless, that it is in this particular apologetical encounter where we see Paul explicitly making common cause with the philosophers because in verses 27 and 28 he cites them in favor of the Christian message! In Acts 17:27, speaking of all men seeking God (or that they should seek God if aptly they might feel after Him and find Him) Paul says “though He is not far from each one of us, for in Him we live and move and have our being as certain even of your own poets have said; we are also His offspring.” Doesn’t Paul then make common cause with the Greek philosophers at this particular point?

What Paul actually says in these verses though is that men will try to seek God, “if perhaps they might feel after Him.” The subordinate clause that is used in that particular verse expresses an unlikely contingency; it’s not likely that they are going to seek after God. Indeed Paul tells us in Rom 3 that “there is none that seek God; they have all turned aside and become unprofitable.” But even if they should seek after God, Paul says that what they do is “grope” or feel after Him. The Greek word that is used is the same word used by Homer for the groping around of the blinded cyclops. Plato used that word for what he called amateur guesses at the truth. Paul says, even if men might seek after God, their groping in darkness, their amateur guesses, give no authority to what they are doing. And so far from showing what Lightfoot thought was a clear appreciation of the elements of truth contained in their philosophy, at Athens Paul taught that the eyes of the unbeliever are blinded to the light of God’s revelation. As he says in Rom 1, unbelievers have a knowledge of God, but it’s one that they suppress, thereby meriting God’s condemnation. Commenting on this, the earlier Berkouwer, writes: “The antithesis looms larger in every encounter with heathendom. It is directed, however, against the maligning that heathendom does to the revealed truth of God in nature, and it calls for conversion to the revelation of God in Christ.”[18]

Then in verse 27, Paul explains that this inept groping of the unbeliever is not due to any deficiency in God — not due to any deficiency in God’s revelation. Verse 28 begins with the word “for.” It is offering a clarification, an illustration, of the statement that God is quite near at hand, even for blinded, pagan thinkers. If perhaps they might grope after Him, Paul says, God is not far from any one of us. And how do you know that? Well, you see, even pagans like yourselves are able to say things which are formally true.

The strange idea that these quotations of the pagan philosophers stand as proof, in the same way as Biblical quotations do for Paul elsewhere in Acts, is not only contrary to Paul’s decided emphasis in his theology upon the unique authority of God’s Word, but it simply will not comport with the context of the Areopagus address, where the groping, unrepentant ignorance of pagan religiosity is forcefully declared.

Paul was quoting the pagan writers not to enlist their support, not to make common cause with them, but to manifest their guilt. Since God is near at hand for all men, his revelation impinges on them continually, and they can’t escape the knowledge of Him as their Creator and as their Sustainer. And what Paul says is that even your philosophers know this. Even pantheistic Stoics are aware of, and obliquely express, God’s nearness and man’s dependence upon Him. And so Paul quotes Epimenides and Aretus (who himself was repeating Cleanthes’ hymn to Zeus).

Knowing the historical and philosophical context in which Paul spoke, and noting the polemical thrusts of the Areopagus address, we can not accept any intrepreter’s hasty pronouncement to the effect that Paul “cites these teachings with approval unqualified by allusion to a totally different frame of reference.” That is what Gordon Lewis says, arguing against Van Til’s understanding of Acts 17.[19] Those who make these remarks eventually are forced to acknowledge the qualification anyway. Lewis goes on to say that Paul is not commending their Stoic doctrine and did not reduce his categories to theirs. I think Berkouwer is correct here, when he says “There is no hint here of a point of contact, in the sense of a preparation for grace, as though the Athenians were already on the way to true knowledge of God.”[20]

Berkouwer says of Paul’s quotation of the Stoics:

This is to be explained only in connection with the fact that the heathen poets have distorted the truth of God…Without this truth there would be no false religiousness. The should not be confessed with the idea that false religion contains elements of the truth and gets its strength from those elements. This kind of quantitative analysis neglects the nature of the distortion carried on by false religion. Pseudo religion witnesses to the truth of God in its apostasy.[21]

Surely Paul was not committing the logical fallacy of equivocation, by using pantheistically conceived premises to support a Biblically conceived theistic conclusion. Rather Paul appealed to the distorted teaching of the pagan authors as evidence that the process of theological distortion cannot fully rid men of their natural knowledge of God. Certain expressions of the pagans thus manifest this knowledge of God, but manifest it as suppressed — as distorted. Ned B. Stonehouse in his excellent discussion of the Areopagus address, observed:

The apostle Paul, reflecting upon their creaturehood, and their religious faith and practice, could discover within their pagan religiosity evidences that the pagan poets in the very act of suppressing and perverting the truth presupposed a measure of awareness of it.[22]

And so their own statements unwittingly convicted the pagan philosophers of the knowledge of God, the knowledge they suppressed in unrighteousness. About these pagan quotations, Van Til observed:

They could say this adventitiously only. That is, that it would be in accord with what they deep down in their hearts knew to be true in spite of their systems. It was that truth which they sought to cover up by means of their professed systems, which enabled them to discover truth as philosophers and scientists.[23]

Men are engulfed by the revelation of God. Try as they may, the truth which they possess in their heart of hearts cannot be escaped, and it will inadvertently come to expression. They do not explicitly understand it properly (to be sure), and yet those expressions are a witness to their inward conviction and their culpability. Consequently, Paul could take advantage of pagan quotations, not as an agreed upon ground for erecting the message of the gospel, but as a basis for calling unbelievers to repentance for their flight from God.

In I Corinthians 1:17, Paul says, “For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel; not in the wisdom of words lest the cross of Christ should be made void.” Paul says that to use the unbeliever’s worldly wisdom — the wisdom of words in his apologetic — would be to make void the word of the cross. This is a very strong statement. Paul says he cannot make common cause with worldly wisdom because, to the degree that he does the cross of Christ is emptied of its meaning.

In II Corinthians 11:3 Paul wrote “But I fear lest by any means as the serpent beguiled Eve in his craftiness, your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity and purity that is toward Christ.” Paul wanted us to have our minds free from corruption. He wanted us to be pure toward Christ, to have a simple devotion to Him and not (like Eve) to be deceived by the serpent. We are not to put our authority above the authority of God’s Word or challenge it.

Paul, as we have seen above then, could use facts or evidences in his apologetic. He could quote unbelieving philosophers. But he never lost sight of the presuppositional antithesis in defending the faith. The apologist needs to recognize that because of “the antithesis,” the debate between believer and unbeliever is fundamentally a dispute or clash between two complete world views, between ultimate commitments and assumptions which are contrary to each other. An unbeliever is not simply an unbeliever at separate points; his antagonism is rooted in an overall “philosophy” of life. (As Paul says in Colossians 2:18, “beware lest any man take you captive through his philosophy.”) Two philosophies or two systems of thought are in collision with each other. One submits to the authority of God’s word as a matter of presuppositional commitment; one does not. The debate between the two perspectives will eventually work down to the level of one’s ultimate authority. The presuppositional apologist realizes that every argument chain must end, and must end in a self-authenticating starting point. If the starting point is not self-authenticating, the chain just goes on and on. Every worldview has its unquestioned and its unquestionable assumptions, its primitive commitments. Religious debate is always a question of ultimate authority.

What is the apologetical method that results from these observations? It will be contrary to that method which we see in men like John Warwick Montgomery, Gordon Clark, or even Francis Schaeffer. When worldviews collide the truly presuppositional and antithetical approach will involve two steps. It will involve first of all an internal critique of the unbeliever’s philosophical system, demonstrating that his outlook really is masking a foolish destruction of knowledge. And then, secondly, it will call for a humble, yet bold, presentation of the reason for the believer’s presuppositional commitment to God’s Word. We see this illustrated in Proverbs 26:4-5. “Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.” Show the fool his folly — where his thinking leads — so he does not think he has anything going for him, “lest he be wise in his own eyes.” And then as Proverbs says, “Don’t answer a fool according to his folly, lest you be like unto him,” lest you end up in the same situation of destroying all possibility of knowledge. In the apologist’s case: lest you be like the fool, don’t answer him according to his folly, foolish presuppositions, but answer him according to your own revealed presuppositions and outlook. Such a procedure can resolve the tension, the debate, the antithesis, between competing authorities and conflicting starting points because it asks, in essence, which position provides the preconditions for observation in science, for reasoning and logic, for absolutes in ethics, and for meaningful discourse between the believer and the unbeliever. The presuppositional approach is basically a setting out of the preconditions of intelligibility for all human thinking.

In Toward a Reformed Apologetic, Van Til puts it this way:

In seeking to follow the example of Paul, Reformed Apologetics needs, above all else, to make clear from the beginning that it is challenging the wisdom of the natural man on the authority of the self-attesting Christ speaking in Scripture. Doing this the Reformed apologist must place himself on the position of his “opponent,” the natural man, in order to show him that on the presupposition of human autonomy human predication cannot even get underway. The fact that it has gotten underway is because the universe is what the Christian, on the authority of Christ, knows it to be. Even to negate Christ, those who hate him must be borne up by Him.[24]

The Christian, by placing himself on the unbeliever’s position can show how it results then in the destruction of intelligible experience and rational thought. The unbeliever must be unmasked of his pretentions. Paul challenges “where is the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?” (I Corinthians 1:18-20). The unbeliever must be shown that he has “no apologetic” for his viewpoint (Rom 1:20). In Rom 1:20, Paul says that unbelievers are left “without excuse,” but etymologically one could actually translate it into English that “they are without an apologetic.” They have no defense of the position they have taken. Non-believers are left, as Paul says in Ephesians 4:17-24, with vain, darkened, ignorant minds that need renewal. The Christian should then teach the unbeliever that all wisdom and knowledge must take Jesus Christ as its reference point (Colossians 2:3) — that Jesus Christ is the self-validating starting point of all knowledge. Christian apologists should press the antithesis in debating with unbelievers. 5. Unbelievers Eventually at War With the Word

Jesus, of course, categorically claimed to be the truth, “I am the way, the truth and the life” (John 14:6). John himself reveals Christ as the very word, the logos, of God (John 1:1). And thus Jesus, who categorically claims to be the truth, Jesus who is the very word and logos of God, becomes the starting point, the self-vindicating foundation of the Christian’s worldview and reasoning. Due to the antithesis between the believer and unbeliever, all unbelieving reasoning must then take its stand in opposition to the Word of God and to the truth of God. To put it briefly, the unbeliever must be “at war with the Word.”

The unbeliever’s enmity against the Word of God is not narrowly a religious matter. Sometimes I think we understand this enmity as though the unbeliever just does not like the religious idea of Jesus being the Son of God and our Saviour. But far more, the unbeliever’s enmity entails opposition to the very worldview which is the context and foundation of any particular, Biblical message or applications. Now since only the Christian worldview makes language and rationality (logic) intelligible, unbelievers will be led, if they are consistent, to oppose language and rationality themselves in order to oppose the Christian worldview which alone sustains their intelligibility and possibility.

To put it somewhat by way of pun, the unbeliever’s war with the Word (that is to say, their war with Scripture and Christ) will lead them to be at war with the word — all human language and meaning. Because they reject the transcendent Word of God, Jesus, who is the very Truth of God, they are led in the immanent domain to reject the idea of the word, meaning, truth, and logic as well. This is just what we see, for instance, in the modern, literary Deconstructionist movement.

[At this point in the original lecture, Dr. Bahnsen turns to criticize the contemporary literary/philosophical movement known as Deconstructionism. Dr. Bahnsen uses contemporary Deconstructionism as a primary example of the non-Christian “war against the Word.” Since Deconstructionists reject the transcendent Word of God, they are led to war against the immanent “word” — all human language and meaning. Jacques Derrida and his disciples do this by attempting to display the radical indeterminacy of linguistic meaning due to the putative absence of any objective norms, universals, or Truth. Dr. Bahnsen argues that Deconstructionism fails to meet its claims and is self-defeating. Deconstructionism, nevertheless, is valuable in that it can be used to demonstrate the failure of non-Christian viewpoints in general.] Conclusion

The conclusion I wish to draw from this discussion is that the “antithetical” nature of Christianity calls for a presuppositional method of defending the faith. According to Dr. Van Til, “the antithesis” revealed in the Bible must be pressed with unbelievers in order to guard Christianity’s uniqueness, exclusivity, and indispensability.

First of all, the antithesis must be pressed to guard Christianity’s uniqueness. Christ cannot be presented to men as simply another Bodhidsatva, another Avatar. He cannot be absorbed into a larger philosophical coherence with other religions.

Secondly, Christianity must not be presented to men as just a general axiom. It is rather an historical particular. Christianity deals with a specific individual, the Christ of history who did particular things at a particular time. It is not just a philosophy understood in the idealist sense. John 14:6 tells us that there is no other way to God. Acts 4:12 tells us that there is no other name under Heaven whereby we must be saved. In Toward a Reformed Apologetic Van Til says:

Romanism and Arminianism have, to some extent, adjusted the gospel of the sovereign grace of God, so as to make it please sinful man in his would-be independence of God. Romanism and Arminianism have a defective theology. Accordingly, they also adjust their method of reasoning with men so as to make it please sinful men. They also have a defective apologetic. They tell the natural men that he has the right idea about himself, the world and God so far as it goes, but that he needs some additional information about these subjects.[25]

What Van Til is getting at is that our task is not to show that Christianity does justice to rationality and to the facts. Van Til says that Christianity alone saves rationality and the facts. It is not simply better than the non-Christian view, it is the the only option available to a rational man. And for that reason the apologist does not need the autonomous man’s “favors.” In The Intellectual Challenge of the Gospel, Van Til declares:

Instead of accepting the favors of modern man, as Romanism and Arminianism do, we should challenge the wisdom of this world. It must be shown to be utterly destructive of predication in any field. It has frequently been shown to be such. It is beyond the possibility of the mind of man to bind together the ideas of pure determinism and of pure indeterminism and by means of that combination to give meaning to life.[26]

To put it briefly, Van Til says do not allow your apologetic to be absorbed into a larger coherence. Rather present it antithetically — as the only way that any coherence can be saved.

Thirdly, Van Til wanted to guard Christianity’s indispensability. Christianity does not need to satisfy autonomous man’s test of logic and facts. It does not need to bow before the authority of the autonomous mind of men. In Toward a Reformed Apologetic, he says:

Romanism and Arminianism try to show Christianity can meet the requirements of the natural man with respect to logic and fact…The rational man must be told that it is not he that must judge Christ but it is Christ who judges him.[27]

And he is told that when the natural man has it explained to him, that when he goes to war with the Word of God, he goes to war with the word of man as well. In The Intellectual Challenge of the Gospel, Van Til uses these stirring words:

The implication of all this for Christian apologetics is plain. There can be no appeasement between those who presuppose in all their thought the sovereign God and those who presuppose in all their thought the would-be sovereign man. There can be no other point of contact between them than that of head-on collision.[28]

So, if we are true to the antithetical nature of Christianity, we must engage in a presuppositional challenge to unbelievers to show them that in terms of their worldview they cannot make sense of logic, facts, meaning, value, ethics or human significance.

An objection is sometimes raised that if you press the antithesis, then you will scuttle communication. Interestingly, only presuppositional argumentation can actually handle the antithesis. If someone thought that the antithesis really undermined apologetical argumentation, then he would face the choice of (1) denying the antithesis which the Bible so clearly presents, or (2) giving up apologetics altogether.

But does the antithesis scuttle apologetics? Kuyper thought it did. Kuyper clearly saw the antithesis and recognized that because of it there would be the development of two sciences or cultures. But from that fact he drew the fallacious conclusion that Christian apologetics was useless. He states in Principles of Sacred Theology, that “It will be impossible to settle the difference of insight. No polemic between these two kinds of science…can ever serve any purpose. This is the reason why apologetics has always failed to reach results.”[29]

This conclusion does not follow, however, when other equally Biblical insights are taken into account. For instance, the unbeliever’s intention may be to follow his naturalistic principle consistently. He may claim to be doing so. But to do so in practice is actually not possible. He cannot escape the persuasive power of God’s revelation around and within him. Indeed, by the common grace of the Holy Spirit, he is restrained from successfully obliterating the testimony of God. And so, he ends up conducting his life and reasoning in terms of God’s revelation, since there is no other way for man to learn and make sense of the truth about him or the world. He does that, all the while, verbally denying it, and convincing himself that it is not so.

In The Defense of the Faith, Van Til writes, “I am unable to follow [Kuyper] when from the fact of the mutually destructive character of the two principles he concludes to uselessness of reasoning with natural man.”[30] Van Til says the spiritually dead man cannot in principle even count and weigh and measure. Van Til says that unbelievers cannot even do math or the simplest operations in science. By that he means the unbeliever’s espoused worldview or philosophy cannot make counting or measuring intelligible. Now why is that? Briefly, because counting involves an abstract concept of law, or universal, or order. If there is no law, if there is no universal, if there is no order, then there is no sequential counting. But the postulation of an abstract universal order contradicts the unbeliever’s view of the universe as a random or chance realm of material particulars. Counting calls for abstract entities which are in fact uniform and orderly. The unbeliever says the world is not abstract — but that the world is only material; the universe is not uniform, but is a chance realm and random. And so by rejecting God’s word — which account for a universal order or law — the unbeliever would not in principle be able to count and measure things. As it is, believers do in fact count and do in fact measure and practice science, but they cannot give a philosophical explanation of that fact. Or as Van Til loved to put it: unbelievers can count, but they cannot account for counting.

In light of these concerns, the antithesis we have been discussing is not an insurmountable impediment to apologetical argumentation. It is, ironically, what makes successful apologetics possible! Not only is the apologist able to mount a compelling argument against the cogency of the unbeliever’s espoused philosophy and the adequacy of his interpretation of the facts, but the unbeliever can also be expected to understand and feel the force of the apologist’s reasoning. Apologetical argument — intellectual reasoning which goes beyond mere testimony — must not therefore be disparaged or ignored by those of us who honor the antithesis. It must not be reduced to a futile effort made vain by the perspectival antithesis between the regenerate and the unregenerate.

Van Til says that Christianity must be presented to men as the objective truth — objective because it has an public nature. That is the common ground between us, believer and unbeliever: the truth that is objectively, publicly there. It is true independent of our feelings; it is true independent of anyone’s belief. We must present the gospel as objective truth and provably true. Warfield was right in that regard. It is not only a moral lapse, but it is also an unjustifiable, intellectual error to reject the message of God’s revealed Word. Because of the antithetical nature of Christianity, only a presuppositional method of argument is able to press home that transcendental challenge with consistency and clarity (arguing from the philosophical impossibility of the contrary position).

The approach to apologetics which gives us piece-meal evidences (e.g. John Warwick Montgomery), or the approach to apologetics which gives us pragmatic, personal appeals (e.g. Francis Schaeffer) or the approach to apologetics which begins with voluntaristic, fideistic axioms (e.g. Gordon Clark) do not adequately deal with the antithesis — thus with Christianity’s indispensability for making sense of rational thought, history, science, or human personality. It is not a matter of whether we should choose between those approaches and the presuppositionalist approach. Given the fact of antithesis, the only approach that will be usable is the presuppositional one. The situational perspective advanced by Montgomery and the existential perspective advanced by Schaeffer cannot compete with the normative apologetical approach of Cornelius Van Til. Only that perspective challenges the unbeliever with Christianity’s indispensability. Van Til wrote at the end of Toward a Reformed Apologetic:

Finally, it is my hope for the future, as it has always been my hope in the past, that I may present Christ without compromise to men who are dead in trespasses and sins, that they might have life and that they might worship and serve the Creator more than the creature…Rather than wedding Christianity to the philosophies of Aristotle or Kant, we must openly challenge the apostate philosophic constructions of men by which they seek to suppress the truth about God, themselves, and the world.[31]

Van Til says we are children of the King. To us, not to the world, do all things belong. It is only if we demand of men complete submission to the living Christ of the Scriptures in every area of their lives that we have presented to them the claims of the Lord Christ without compromise. In short, we must not synthesize Christ’s words with unbelieving philosophies, but rather present Him antithetically in apologetics. Only then do we do so without compromise. Notes

[1] Van Til, Cornelius, A Survey of Christian Epistemology [Originally “Metaphysics of Apologetics,”] (New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed Publ. Co., 1969), v.

[2] (New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed Publ. Co., 1946), p. 364.

[3] (New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed Publ. Co., 1947), p.3.

[4] (New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed Publ. Co., 1955), pp. 319ff.

[5] Geehan, E.R., Jerusalem and Athens, (New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed Publ. Co., 1955), pp. 20,21.

[6] (n.p., n.d.) pp. 24-28.

[7] (London:SCM Press, rev. 1971) pp. 372,373.

[8] Van Til, C., The Intellectual Challenge of the Gospel, (New Jersey: L.J. Grotenhuis, 1953) p. 17.

[9] Geehan, pp. 19,20.

[10] Macquarrie, p. 373.

[11] (Berkeley: Univ. of Calif. Press, 1982), p.273.

[12] Toulmin, p.274.

[13] ibid. p.274.

[14] (New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed Publ. Co., 1955)

[15] (New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed Publ. Co., 1969)

[16] (New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed Publ. Co., 1974)

[17] Kuyper, A., Principles of Sacred Theology, trans. J. Hendrik De Vries (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968 [1898]), pp. 150-156.

[18] Berkouwer, G.C., General Revelation, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1955), p.145.

[19] “Mission to the Athenians,” Part IV, Seminary Service, (Denver: Conservative Baptist Theological Seminary, 1964), p.7.

[20] Berkouwer, p. 143.

[21] ibid. p.144.

[22] Stonehouse, N.B., Paul Before the Areopagus and Other New Testament Studies, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957), p. 30.

[23] Van Til, C., Paul at Athens, (Phillipsburg : L. J. Grotenhuis, n.d.) p. 12.

[24] Van Til, Reformed Apologetic, p. 20.

[25] ibid. p.3.

[26] Van Til, Intellectual Challenge, p.40.

[27] Van Til, Reformed Apologetic, p.6, 7.

[28] Van Til, Intellectual Challenge, p.19.

[29] Kuyper, Principles, p. 160.

[30] Van Til, Defense, p.363.

[31] Van Til, Reformed Apologetic, p. 28.

Greg L. Bahnsen, Th.M., Ph.D. (Philosophy; USC) is a pastor of Covenant Community Church, Advisory Dean of Newport Christian Schools, and a senior editor of Antithesis.

Copyright © by Covenant Community Church of Orange County 1990

Subscribe To Our Newsletter

Join our mailing list to receive the latest news and updates from our ring of reformed sites.

Keep up to date on new articles, new reformed and puritan books, and coupons for purchasing some of the best reformed literature in print!

You have Successfully Subscribed!

Look up a word, learn it forever.

/ænˈtɪθəsəs/, /ænˈtɪθɪsɪs/.

Other forms: antitheses

An antithesis is the complete opposite of something. Though the counterculture was strong in America in 1968, voters elected Richard Nixon, the antithesis of a hippie.

The noun antithesis comes from a Greek root meaning "opposition" and "set against." It's often used today when describing two ideas or terms that are placed in strong contrast to each other. We might come across antithesis in school if we learn about the "Hegelian dialectic." There, the thesis , or main idea put forward in an argument, is countered with its opposite idea — the antithesis — and the two are finally reconciled in a third proposition, the synthesis . An antithesis wouldn't exist without a thesis because it works as a comparison.

• noun exact opposite “his theory is the antithesis of mine” see more see less type of: oppositeness , opposition the relation between opposed entities
• noun the juxtaposition of contrasting words or ideas to give a feeling of balance see more see less type of: rhetorical device a use of language that creates a literary effect (but often without regard for literal significance)

Vocabulary lists containing antithesis

Learn these words beginning with the prefix anti , meaning "against," "in opposition to," or "opposite of." Want to increase your prefix power? Learn our complete set of Power Prefix lists: anti- , con- , dis- , ex- , fore- , inter- , mis- , pre- , pro- , sub- , super- , trans- , uni-

Looking to build your vocabulary? Then practice this list of 300 "hard words" — the kind that used to be tested on the SAT before 2016. If you're a high school student prepping for the SAT, check out Vocabulary.com's Roadmap to the SAT , which focuses on the vocabulary you'll need to ace today's SAT test.

You'll be able to express yourself with style once you learn these rhetorical devices and tropes. This vocabulary list covers a wide range of techniques used in formal speech and writing, from alliteration to zeugma.

Sign up now (it’s free!)

Whether you’re a teacher or a learner, vocabulary.com can put you or your class on the path to systematic vocabulary improvement..

• Literary Terms

How to Use Antithesis

• Definition & Examples

Because antithesis is such a complex rhetorical device, and so intimately tied to the meaning of specific sentences, it’s best not to set out with a plan of using it, especially in research papers or more technical writing.  Instead, simply let the antitheses appear where they naturally do. Since they emphasize a particular point or conclusion, they can be used in everything from poetry and prose, to speech and advertising.  But if you try to force antithesis into your writing, you risk distorting what you mean to say, or at least making it muddier.

Instead of practicing antithesis directly, you can try using parallel structure , which will often result in the creation of very effective antithesis – but only when that’s what your meaning requires.

Parallel structure is the use of the same word types and grammatical structures in two parts of a sentence. For example:

• Structure: “ you”-verb-preposition-noun
• Structure: verb-“the”-noun
• Structure: verb-“me”-“a”-noun

None of the above examples is an antithesis. However, they are all sentences that use parallel structure. Next, let’s look at some examples of parallel structure that are also examples of antithesis:

• Structure: imperative verb-“the”-noun
• Structure: adjective-“fish in a”-adjective-“pond”
• Structure: adjective-“in”-pl. noun

In addition to their parallel structure, these examples also have reversed ideas – that’s why they’re all examples of antithesis.

List of Terms

• Alliteration
• Amplification
• Anachronism
• Anthropomorphism
• Antonomasia
• APA Citation
• Aposiopesis
• Autobiography
• Bildungsroman
• Characterization
• Circumlocution
• Cliffhanger
• Comic Relief
• Connotation
• Deus ex machina
• Deuteragonist
• Doppelganger
• Double Entendre
• Dramatic irony
• Equivocation
• Extended Metaphor
• Figures of Speech
• Flash-forward
• Foreshadowing
• Intertextuality
• Juxtaposition
• Literary Device
• Malapropism
• Onomatopoeia
• Parallelism
• Pathetic Fallacy
• Personification
• Point of View
• Polysyndeton
• Protagonist
• Red Herring
• Rhetorical Device
• Rhetorical Question
• Science Fiction
• Self-Fulfilling Prophecy
• Synesthesia
• Turning Point
• Understatement
• Urban Legend
• Verisimilitude
• Essay Guide
• Cite This Website

• Daily Crossword
• Word Puzzle
• Word Finder
• Word of the Day
• Synonym of the Day
• Word of the Year
• Language stories
• All featured
• Gender and sexuality
• All pop culture
• Writing hub
• Grammar essentials
• Commonly confused
• All writing tips
• Pop culture
• Writing tips

Advertisement

[ an- tith - uh -sis ]

the antithesis of right and wrong.

Her behavior was the very antithesis of cowardly.

Synonyms: reverse , opposite

• the placing of a sentence or one of its parts against another to which it is opposed to form a balanced contrast of ideas, as in “Give me liberty or give me death.”
• the second sentence or part thus set in opposition, as “or give me death.”
• Philosophy. Hegelian dialectic

/ ænˈtɪθɪsɪs /

• the exact opposite
• contrast or opposition
• rhetoric the juxtaposition of contrasting ideas, phrases, or words so as to produce an effect of balance, such as my words fly up, my thoughts remain below
• philosophy the second stage in the Hegelian dialectic contradicting the thesis before resolution by the synthesis

Other Words From

• self-an·tithe·sis noun

Word History and Origins

Origin of antithesis 1

Example Sentences

Belle Knox is the antithesis of Jenna Jameson—and not just in looks.

To me this is the antithesis of what travel should be about.

Married at First Sight is the antithesis of The Bachelor and The Bachelorette.

Yet its sound is the musical antithesis of a blended Frappuccino.

Now Joffrey, the Starks' black-hearted antithesis, has met a similar fate.

If you did fail, you would try Exclusion, and you would find nothing which is the antithesis of the area of New York.

Thus seen, socialism appeared as the very antithesis of law and order, of love and chastity, and of religion itself.

There is, however, but little danger of overdoing the parallel construction where there is no antithesis.

Nor is it to be wondered at, if we consider the antithesis which is presented to their usual mode of life.

He is a sentimental Classicist, and his subjects the antithesis of the Grco-Roman ideal to which he does homage in his technique.

• Dictionaries home
• American English
• Collocations
• German-English
• Grammar home
• Practical English Usage
• Learn & Practise Grammar (Beta)
• Word Lists home
• My Word Lists
• Recent additions
• Resources home
• Text Checker

Definition of antithesis noun from the Oxford Advanced American Dictionary

Take your English to the next level

The Oxford Learner’s Thesaurus explains the difference between groups of similar words. Try it for free as part of the Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary app

ENGLISH Related Links

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Your Mobile number and Email id will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Request OTP on Voice Call

Post My Comment

Register with BYJU'S & Download Free PDFs

Register with byju's & watch live videos.

• Britannica Homepage
• Ask the Editor
• Word of the Day
• Core Vocabulary
• Most Popular
• Browse the Dictionary
• My Saved Words
• antithesis (noun)
• poverty and its antithesis [= opposite ], wealth
• She is the antithesis of a politician. [=her character is the opposite of a politician's]
• His lifestyle is the antithesis of healthy living.
• The poem reflects the antithesis of/between good and evil.

a person who receives something ( )

• About Us & Legal Info
• Partner Program
• Privacy Notice
• Terms of Use
• Pronunciation Symbols

What's the opposite of Meaning of the word Words that rhyme with Sentences with the word Translate to Find Words Use * for blank tiles (max 2) Use * for blank spaces Find the of Pronounce the word in Find Names     Appearance ✓ Use device theme   ✓ Dark theme ✓ Light theme ? ? Here's a list of from our that you can use instead. ▲ ) ) ) ▲ ) Opposite of the characteristics determining who or what a person or thing is ) Opposite of the characteristics determining who or what a person or thing is , everything appeared to be normal, but the reality was far from conventional.” to stay within the limitations imposed by your physical conditioning.” ) Opposite of to fertilize by the same strain Use * for blank tiles (max 2) Use * for blank spaces Related Words and Phrases Bottom_desktop desktop:[300x250]. go Word Tools Finders & Helpers Apps More Synonyms Copyright WordHippo © 2024 An official website of the United States government Here’s how you know Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States. Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites. Science and Technology Directorate Feature Article: The Question of Who You Are The Science and Technology Directorate (S&T) and the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) have joined forces to issue digital credentials using openly developed, free to implement internet standards. Here’s what this means and why it matters. One of the critical challenges of our technology-driven, interconnected world is identity. Without even speaking a word, we identify ourselves every day and in many different ways. Perhaps you enter a PIN to sign-in to a bank account or use a password to login to your health benefits. You scan your own face to unlock your phone to access some of the apps running on it. You swipe an ID card with a magnetic stripe to enter your office building. And of course, when you travel or work abroad, you must identify yourself with a passport. But what are you sharing when you identify yourself? Where does that identifying number or document come from, and who controls access to it? S&T is working to help make your identity more secure, and to put control over your privacy and personal information into your own hands. Jared Goodwin, Chief of the Document Management Division within the Office of Intake and Document Production (OIDP) at USCIS, was also working on these issues. OIDP is tasked with the production of all immigration documents—they design the documents and acquire the vendors to produce them. USCIS wants to be able to issue digital credentials, like a green card, to a smartphone, which would be easier to carry and use, more secure, and it could be supported online. Actions like renewing and modifying immigration status would not require standing in line at an office somewhere. Jared discovered S&T’s Silicon Valley Innovation Program was exploring similar solutions. “They’re going out to industry to look for ways to partner with agencies to prevent forgery and the counterfeiting of certificates and licenses,” he said. Jared contacted SVIP and the solution that they settled on together is to use two openly developed, global standards called Verifiable Credentials Data Model (VCDM) and Decentralized Identifiers (DID). Created by the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), a global standards development organization, with the support of S&T, USCIS, and many other like-minded partners, these standards describe how a secure, privacy respecting digital credentialing process can be implemented. DIDs are unique identifiers that can be assigned to organizations, devices, or people. A DID, unlike a social security number, functions solely as an identifier and cannot be used for verification, as that role is deliberately separated and implemented using public key cryptography. VCDM is a way to express credentials in a way that is cryptographically secure, privacy respecting, and machine verifiable. In addition, this standard enables a person to minimize the disclosure of personal data by implementing selective disclosure capabilities. Selective disclosure allows digital credentials to contain many pieces of information but gives the user discretion to share only the specific information required for a particular transaction with the government or non-government entities, rather than disclosing the entire contents of the credential. So, the ability to selectively share, with consent, only pieces of information needed for a particular encounter is a highly desired capability. Consider this example: a customer attempts to purchase a six-pack of beer at a convenience store. The way it works now, the cashier asks for an ID to verify the customer is old enough to buy liquor, but when they hand over their driver’s license…what else are they handing over? Think about that very common transaction for a moment: a state-issued document from a department of motor vehicles, which is intended to demonstrate the qualification to drive a car, is presented to verify that you are older than 21. This document shares your date of birth, address, ID number, organ donation status, if you need to wear glasses, even your height and weight. Part of the promise of the W3C standards is the ability to share only the data required for a transaction. In the scenario above, when the cashier asks for proof that you are older than 21, the customer could use the digital Permanent Resident Card on their phone to prove their verified age without sharing any other information (not even a specific date of birth). This is an important step towards putting privacy back in the hands of the people. The DHS Privacy Office , charged with “embedding and enforcing privacy protections and transparency in all DHS activities,” has been brought into the process to review the W3C VCDM/DID framework and advise on any potential issues.  “Beyond ensuring global interoperability, standards developed by the W3C undergo wide reviews that ensure that they incorporate security, privacy, accessibility, and internationalization,” said SVIP Managing Director Melissa Oh, “by helping implement these standards in our digital credentialing efforts, S&T, through SVIP, is helping to ensure that the technologies we use make a difference for people in how they secure their digital transactions and protect their privacy.” “Going forward, the government wants to ensure individuals have agency and control over their digital interactions,” said Goodwin. “The user should be able to own their identity and decide when to share it, and we don’t want a system that has to reach back to an agency for verification.” Thanks to the work of SVIP, USCIS and many others, digital credentials using W3C VCDM and W3C DID standards are going to become more and more common in the near future. The work will make a big difference preventing identity theft and forgery, allowing individuals to control their own personal information and privacy, especially online. For related media inquiries, please contact [email protected] . Science and Technology Credentialing U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) Cast & crew Despite the risk and prejudices, a very successful CEO begins an illicit affair with her much younger intern. Despite the risk and prejudices, a very successful CEO begins an illicit affair with her much younger intern. Despite the risk and prejudices, a very successful CEO begins an illicit affair with her much younger intern. Halina Reijn Nicole Kidman Harris Dickinson Antonio Banderas Intern Rose Uber Driver All cast & crew Production, box office & more at IMDbPro More like this December 20, 2024 (United States) United States New York City, New York, USA (street scenes) Man Up Film See more company credits at IMDbPro Technical specs Related news, contribute to this page. See more gaps Learn more about contributing More to explore Recently viewed. 105 COMMENTS Antithesis The word "antithesis" has another meaning, which is to describe something as being the opposite of another thing. For example, "love is the antithesis of selfishness." This guide focuses only on antithesis as a literary device. The word antithesis has its origins in the Greek word antithenai, meaning "to oppose." The plural of antithesis is ... Antithesis Definition & Meaning antithesis: [noun] the direct opposite. the rhetorical contrast of ideas by means of parallel arrangements of words, clauses, or sentences (as in "action, not words" or "they promised freedom and provided slavery"). opposition, contrast. the second of two opposing words, clauses, or sentences that are being rhetorically contrasted. Antithesis: Definition and Examples Antithesis can be a little tricky to see at first. To start, notice how each of these examples is separated into two parts. The parts are separated either by a dash, a semicolon, or the word "but." Antithesis always has this multi-part structure (usually there are two parts, but sometimes it can be more, as we'll see in later examples). Antithesis Definition of Antithesis. Antithesis is a literary device that refers to the juxtaposition of two opposing elements through the parallel grammatical structure. The word antithesis, meaning absolute opposite, is derived from Greek for "setting opposite," indicating when something or someone is in direct contrast or the obverse of another thing or person. Antithesis Antithesis (pl.: antitheses; Greek for "setting opposite", from ἀντι-"against" and θέσις "placing") is used in writing or speech either as a proposition that contrasts with or reverses some previously mentioned proposition, or when two opposites are introduced together for contrasting effect.. Antithesis can be defined as "a figure of speech involving a seeming contradiction of ideas ... What is Antithesis? Definition, Examples of Antitheses in Writing An antithesis is just that—an "anti" "thesis.". An antithesis is used in writing to express ideas that seem contradictory. An antithesis uses parallel structure of two ideas to communicate this contradiction. Example of Antithesis: "Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee." -Muhammad Ali. This example of antithesis is a famous ... ANTITHESIS ANTITHESIS meaning: 1. the exact opposite: 2. a difference or opposition between two things: 3. the exact opposite: . Learn more. ANTITHESIS Definition & Meaning Antithesis definition: . See examples of ANTITHESIS used in a sentence. antithesis noun the opposite of something. Love is the antithesis of selfishness. Students finishing their education at 16 is the very antithesis of what society needs. The current establishment is the antithesis of democracy. Topics Language c2 Antithesis Definition & Meaning Antithesis definition, opposition; contrast: the antithesis of right and wrong. See more. ANTITHESIS ANTITHESIS definition: 1. the exact opposite: 2. a difference or opposition between two things: 3. the exact opposite: . Learn more. What Is Antithesis? Learn How It Is Used To Create Emphasis Antithesis is the juxtaposition of two diametrically opposite or strongly contrasting elements contained within a parallel grammatical structure. It comes from the Greek word antitheton, meaning "opposition.". Antithesis is not only used to emphasize the difference between two things but also to define them. What Does Antithesis Mean? Antithesis is a noun and is derived from a late Latin and Greek root meaning "setting opposites," "opposition," or "set against." It has always been used to describe two terms, ideas, clauses, or sentences that contrast while remaining within a balanced grammatical structure. What Is an Antithesis? Definition & 15+ Examples Antithesis is a figure of speech that uses parallelism to present opposing ideas. In essence, it is the juxtaposition of contrasting concepts, usually in balanced or parallel phrases, to create a heightened effect in a sentence or expression. This rhetorical device can emphasize the differences between two opposing ideas, allowing the writer or ... At War With the Word: The Necessity of Biblical Antithesis ... After all, respect for, and condoning of, that antithesis would be implicitly self-condemning. John 3:20 tells us that it is precisely an escape from God's condemnation which unbelievers seek. The remarkable thing is that even professedly "Christian" scholars would likewise make the vain effort to eliminate the antithesis between Biblical ... Antithesis antithesis: 1 n exact opposite "his theory is the antithesis of mine" Type of: oppositeness , opposition the relation between opposed entities n the juxtaposition of contrasting words or ideas to give a feeling of balance Type of: rhetorical device a use of language that creates a literary effect (but often without regard for literal significance) How to Use Antithesis How to Use Antithesis. Because antithesis is such a complex rhetorical device, and so intimately tied to the meaning of specific sentences, it's best not to set out with a plan of using it, especially in research papers or more technical writing. Instead, simply let the antitheses appear where they naturally do. Since they emphasize a particular point or conclusion, they can be used in ... ANTITHESIS Definition & Meaning Antithesis definition: opposition; contrast. See examples of ANTITHESIS used in a sentence. antithesis noun Definition of antithesis noun in Oxford Advanced American Dictionary. Meaning, pronunciation, picture, example sentences, grammar, usage notes, synonyms and more. Antithesis: Meaning, Definition and Examples Antithesis is a figure of speech that places two completely contrasting ideas or clauses in juxtaposition. An oxymoron is a figure of speech that contains two opposing or contrasting words placed adjacent to each other within a phrase to produce an effect. For example: "Art is long, and Time is fleeting.". For example: Antithesis Definition & Meaning 1. : the exact opposite of something or someone. poverty and its antithesis [= opposite ], wealth. — often + of. She is the antithesis of a politician. [=her character is the opposite of a politician's] His lifestyle is the antithesis of healthy living. 2. : the state of two things that are directly opposite to each other — often + of or ... What is the opposite of self? Opposite of the subconscious mind or self. Opposite of the basic or inherent features, character, or qualities of something. Opposite of a character, role or appearance that is affected by someone. Opposite of the subconscious part of the mind. Adjective. Existential Crisis: How To Overcome It Other signs you're in an existential crisis include: Thinking about death, life, meaning or purpose more than usual. A dip in self-esteem or an increase in self-doubt.; Difficulty focusing on ... What is an Autonomous Car? Definition. An autonomous car is a vehicle capable of sensing its environment and operating without human involvement. A human passenger is not required to take control of the vehicle at any time, nor is a human passenger required to be present in the vehicle at all. ... However, it's a slightly different thing. A self-driving car can drive ... Earth's core has slowed so much it's moving backward ... Here's what it could mean — and why the topic has been the subject of fierce debate. Scientists say they've confirmed Earth's inner core has been slowing down. Feature Article: The Question of Who You Are Mockup of a U.S. Permanent Resident card as a digital credential. Photo credit USCIS. Without even speaking a word, we identify ourselves every day and in many different ways. Babygirl (2024) Babygirl: Directed by Halina Reijn. With Nicole Kidman, Harris Dickinson, Antonio Banderas, Jean Reno. Despite the risk and prejudices, a very successful CEO begins an illicit affair with her much younger intern. assignment essay homework paper phd report resume review speech thesis