Worldly Wisdom in
Modern Christian Apologetics and I Corinthians 1-3
Recently, Triablogue reviewed Blackwell’s Companion to
Natural Theology, giving it a positive nod. I usually agree with the views
expressed by the men at Triablogue. However, in this case, I happen to have a
completely different perspective on the subject of natural theology and its
usefulness in presenting the gospel. What is the best approach from a biblical perspective? What does the
Bible teach concerning how Christians should share their faith? Are we free to select
whatever method suits our personal style and tastes?
The question of natural theology is more than just an epistemological
question. To be sure, it has epistemological implications and these implications
are expansive. However, the question of natural theology is a theological
question, and all theological questions are questions that necessarily involve
divine revelation. When the Church relocates theological questions such as this
to the field of philosophy, she unwittingly leaves behind her only source for
discovering truthful answers to the questions she asks. Yes, she gains academic
respect in the scholarly community, who would otherwise accuse her of being
anti-intellectual. However, the cost of academic respectability of godless scholars
is far greater than the Church should be willing to pay.
“Natural theology
deals with what can be known about the existence (see Cosmological Argument; Kalam Cosmological Argument) and nature
of God by natural reason (see Revelation,
General), apart from any supernatural revelation (see Revelation, Special). According to classical Christian theists
(see Theism), such as Thomas Aquinas
(1225–1274), all of the essential metaphysical attributes of God can be known
by natural reason. This includes God’s aseity, simplicity, immutability,
eternality, simplicity, unity, infinity, and morality.”[1]
In other words, unaided natural reason can, without any
special grace from God, accurately know and understand God. Hence, if we know how
to command the use of human reason in just the right way, we may be able to
bring unregenerate men to a place where they actually hold to the same
knowledge of God as believers do in many respects. Using this proposition about
human reason, Christian leaders have invented sophisticated philosophical
arguments in an attempt to persuade unbelievers of the truthfulness of God’s
existence. As time has progressed, these arguments have become multifarious and
highly intricate. The target of these arguments is the intellectual, the
atheist, the scientist, the philosopher, usually, the highly educated. By
highly educated, I mean they have devoted serious time to the materials, the
arguments, and to formulating a more formal and structured position around
theism and they can usually articulate that position very well.
Here is the excerpt from Steve Hayes at Triablogue that
reflects, in my opinion, a fundamental flaw in how we think about Christian apologetics: However, I think it would
often be a mistake for a Christian to imagine that this equips him to go on the
offensive and pick fights or do battle with unbelievers. In debate, a
specialist usually has an advantage over a nonspecialist. He can argue circles
around the nonspecialist. Even though the specialist may be dead wrong, he can
do a snow job on the nonspecialist. An atheist who’s a clever young philosophy
major has a lot of strategies at his disposal to deflect a popularized version
of the AFR. If Joe Six-pack Christian gets into an argument with an unbeliever
like that, he may well lose the argument, not because he’s wrong, but because
he lacks the sophistication to field the counterarguments. And that experience
could disillusion him. That might shake his faith. Leave him worse off than
before. So we need to make sure the nonspecialist has reasonable expectations
about what a popularized theistic proof can accomplish.
It seems clear that Steve is endorsing a method of
apologetics that embraces natural theology along with the idea that we can and
should explore various ways to reason with unbelievers in order to persuade
them to accept Christianity. I say Christianity over Theism because we are not
charged with proving the existence of a god, which is theism. We are tasked
with preaching the gospel to an unbelieving world. One could legitimately ask
if we are even tasked with the duty to debate the existence of God with
skeptics and atheists. What does Scripture have to say about unregenerate human
reason? There are two texts that I think we should look at briefly. You, on the
other hand, if you are interested in apologetics and methods, should spend a
great deal of time in Romans 1-3 and 1 Corinthians 1-3. Read them over and over
until you understand Paul’s thoughts around unregenerate human reasoning and
its limitations.
First and foremost, human reason is not ethically neutral.
That is to say, human reason did not escape the curse. Like every other part of
the human, the curse of sin has devastated the human intellect. The ethical
component of sin reaches all the way to the intellect, the emotions, and the
will. Nothing was protected from the curse of the fall. Paul informs us in
Romans 8:7-8 that the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for
it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so,
and those who are in the flesh cannot please God. Space prohibits a more
detailed treatment of these verses, but take them at face value for there is
nothing in the text that would give us cause to take them any other way. The
idea that human reason is somehow unaffected by the curse of sin is
anchored in humanistic philosophy, not biblical theology. Unregenerate thinking
has a proclivity to do violence to the truth of God, to God Himself by
distorting His image into one that is tolerable, acceptable, or by completely
vanishing Him from existence. This condition of the intellect persists so long
as the intellect remains unregenerate.
The second issue is how Paul frames this up in Romans 1. The
first issue is that men do possess the truth. God has given it to them. However,
these unregenerate receptors of truth engage in a twisting, perversion, and
suppression of that truth. In other words, the unregenerate intellect does
something strange to the truth about God that it receives. It distorts it. It
puts the CD into the stereo and then turns the music up so loud that what is on
the CD is not what is coming out of the speakers, sort of. It is the same band,
the same notes, but the message has been changed by the receptor. The receptor
knows there is a band playing instruments. The receptor knows that “something”
must have went into the project to produce this music. But because the receptor
is a sworn enemy of the band, it intentionally distorts the music. This analogy
doesn’t carry us far enough in the theological discussion because not only is
the act of perverting natural revelation an act of the will, it is an
unavoidable one. The will does what the mind thinks is best (Edwards). And the
mind is hostile. Hence the will is held hostage to the mind, always. Therefore,
it is unable to do those things because the mind is in a state of war against God.
The only way to change the will is to change the mind. Repentance is changing
the mind, not in the sense of swapping out ideas. It is a new mind altogether.
That is how we change our mind about Christ, about God, about divine truth. We
require a new mind! Scripture calls it a new heart!
In Romans 1, Paul says, they suppress the truth in
unrighteousness. He says, that which is known about God is evident within them.
He says, God made it (the knowledge of God) evident to them. Paul says that God’s
attributes have been clearly seen (not clearly expressed). Paul said God’s attributes
have been understood through what has been made. Paul says that even though
they knew God they did not honor Him as God. Rather, they have become futile in
their speculations.
Now, this seems like more than enough to me to conclude that
human reason is not neutral. From this text we can deduce that all men have
received the truth and that they have and do suppress it. We can say that the
truth about God is known by unregenerate men and that it is clearly and easily
known. They already know some truth about God. The language does not say that
God’s creation clearly expresses His attributes so that men should know
which is what one commenter says at Triablogue. Paul uses the passive voice,
telling us they are seen and understood. This fact, Paul tells us, leaves them without excuse. They are culpable.
Now, I want to play a game. I want to assume that Paul isn’t
telling us that men know, but that they have enough evidence in creation and
conscience that they should know. The AFR approach would say that men are just
reasoning wrongly and if we help them spot the flaws in how they are thinking,
we will win them over. In order to hold that view, they must interpret Romans 1
as I have presumed in this paragraph. Or, at a minimum, they cannot interpret it
as I do which is expressed above. Even if Romans one is not saying that all men
know and see, and understand the truth about God, it does not follow that we
should spend our time constructing these sophisticated philosophical arguments.
Why not? Well, at a minimum Paul is saying that what they have already, without
any additional material, without any additional evidence, without any
additional arguments, is sufficient. It is enough! Creation and conscience is
enough to produce culpability. I do not interpret Paul in this way, but even
for those who do, they still cannot overcome the obstacle before them. God says
He has given them enough in creation and conscience. Therefore, to respond to
every intellectual obstacle an unbeliever can think up for why they don’t want
to believe in God is, in my opinion, not the best way for Christians and
especially Christian leaders to spend their time.
In his first letter to the Corinthians, at least the one we
have in the canon, Paul deals with worldly wisdom and the gospel a lot. He says
something very interesting in 1:17, essentially, Paul says that God did not
send him to proclaim, present, or preach the gospel with cleverness of speech
so that the cross would not be voided. In other words, repurposing how we
present the message could void the cross! How else can we account for the hina
clause that follows? This text should scream out to us that not only is what we proclaim significant, but how we
proclaim the message is serious business. The possibility of voiding the cross
by using clever (sohia) words is portentous to say the least. Only sinful human arrogance would treat it
otherwise.
Next Paul informs us that the word of the cross is foolishness
to those who are perishing. The gospel is moronic to unbelievers. The Greek
word for foolishness is where we get our English word moron. To one who is
lost, the gospel, the true gospel is absolutely foolish. This begs the question
of whether or not we are aiming rightly when we aim to employ tactics like AFR
in order to interact with unbelievers. The NT seems to know absolutely nothing
of it. All throughout the NT, we witness presentations and are instructed to
present Jesus, present the good news, present the gospel, to proclaim the truth
of the resurrected Savior. Paul goes on to tell us that God warns us that he
will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the cleverness of the clever. So much
for philosophy! God has promised to destroy the cognoscente. He has set them
aside, preferring instead a foolish message, delivered with a foolish method,
mostly to foolish people, the simple, the common.
Paul asks the Corinthians: where is the philosopher, where
is the lawyer, where is the rhetorician? Look around! God has made the wise to
be foolish. He has shamed that which men prized, honored and exalted. And this
absolutely drives us insane, even in the Church. One commenter, in my quote of
1 Cor. 1:18 accused me of being an anti-intellectual. Of course I went to “goodreads”
where he says he writes a lot of book reviews to see what “kind” of books he
reads and reviews. I noticed there was not a single solitary book on godly
living, sanctification, love, service, or anything else related to Christian
praxis. They were predominantly philosophical, theological and with some logic.
The point is that we can turn the intellect into an idol. And with many of
these apologetic methods in Christianity, that is all too often the attraction.
It was for me until God slowly had to pound that out of me with one trial after
another, forcing me to run to the text time and again until my thick-head and
prideful heart started to get it.
Paul says this world did not come to God through its wisdom.
That seems entirely contrary to natural theology’s view that they can. Paul
says God was pleased to save the world through the foolishness of the message
preached. God intentionally has not elected many philosophers, lawyers, or rhetoricians.
We need to let that sink in. He chose mostly the base, the simple, and the
foolish with a few of the others sprinkled in for purposes known only to
Himself. Look at Athens. Such a large city in Paul’s day, yet, not a single
letter addressing a church there.
Paul says the gospel is a scandal for the Jew and moronic to
the Gentile. Why then does AFR think that the gospel can be turned into a
message of intellectual respectability from skeptics, philosophers, and
academicians the world over? Paul apparently did not think this of the gospel.
He readily admitted that what he presented would be considered laughable to the
unbeliever. He goes on again to point out that God has deliberately not chosen
many philosophers, nor many politicians, nor many of the well-breed so to
speak. Paul says that God has deliberately not chosen many philosophers,
politicians, or wealthy to be among His ranks. Perhaps it is no accident that
most of the skeptics, critics, cynics and those aggressively seeking to destroy
theism come from these very ranks. Have we ever given this much thought?
Perhaps we can do a better job at connecting these dots.
God chose the foolish things to shame these wise men, and
the weak and poor to shame the powerful and the rich and He did it on purpose.
Paul tells us that his preaching does not rest in human reasoning, in
philosophical acumen, but rather in the power of God. Notice how Paul contrasts
worldly philosophy with the genuine gospel, the presentation of the good news?
This helps us avoid a misplaced faith. Faith in human reason, in our ability to
defend the truths of Christianity from the standpoint of human reason and
worldly philosophies is indeed a dangerous thing. It is very harmful to
Christians to imply that they need these sophisticated complex and often convoluted
arguments in order to be able to be a good representative of Christ and His
Church. When they fail, because their faith is in human reason and philosophy,
they are tempted to think the message may not be true after all.
Jesus Himself gave us instructions of how to deal with those
who reject our message and mock us and our Savior. To the disciples He said
they were to shake the dust off their feet if the city rejected the message.
Paul, after being rejected city after city by the Jews, turned to the Gentiles.
Even for those within the Christian community, we are not to wrangle with them
without end. There is a clear end to the corrections. Paul issues numerous
warnings in the pastorals about this. One such warning to Timothy is found in 2
Tim. 2:14. “The content of the warning includes an appeal to avoid “quarreling
about words.” This wrong emphasis can lead to aimless word splitting. “In the
end disputing about words seeks not the victory of truth but the victory of the
speaker.”2 This word splitting involved useless
verbal quibbling, but it did not focus on the aims of Christianity.”[2]
I recognize the legitimacy of contending for the faith once
for all delivered to the saints. We have a duty to propagate Christian truth in
the public square and with as many individuals as we can. Paul was equipped to
preach the gospel to the Jews. He debated with them often. But his approach was not
open for a variety of methods. An occasional quote of a pagan writer should not
be construed as wholesale acceptance of ungodly philosophical methods. To argue
to the contrary does more to reveal bias than it does anything else. There is
simply no exegetical basis upon which to make that case.
What then should we do in terms of equipping individual
Christians to share the gospel with unbelievers and handle objections? We start
with setting expectations. A solid theological foundation should serve to help
folks understand that unbelievers are going to reject the message and perhaps
argue to the contrary. Their authority is autonomous human reason, science,
philosophy, etc. The Christian’s authority is Scripture. For them, knowledge
comes through experience mostly, while for the Christian all knowledge is
revelational.
Christians must be trained to articulate a succinct presentation
of the gospel. God saves His elect through the foolishness of the gospel. Faith
comes by hearing the word of God, not complex philosophical proofs for the
existence of God. Moreover, what we are interested in is the gospel. We desire
to see men saved. And if that is true, and all that is needed is the gospel,
why would we dedicate an abhorrent amount of time to an area that does not
produce salvation. That approach is more about winning an argument, a debate, a
verbal battle, intellectual pugilism, than it is about simple gospel truth.
I was basically accused of being an anti-intellectual
because I was silly enough to say that preaching the gospel was enough. Either
Scripture is sufficient for evangelism and soul-winning or it is not. You
cannot have it both ways. All I ask is that you be man enough to say what you
mean, rather than wrangle over words. Either we believe the gospel saves those
whom God has chosen, or we believe there is more to winning souls than living
and preaching Christ!
The entire first two chapters of 1 Corinthians speaks to
this issue. But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God,
for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they
are spiritually appraised. But he who is spiritual appraises all things, yet he
himself is appraised by no one. For who has known the mind of the Lord, that he
will instruct Him? But we have the mind of Christ. [3]
[1]
Norman L. Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of
Christian Apologetics, Baker Reference Library (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker
Books, 1999), 282.
[2]
Thomas D. Lea and Hayne P. Griffin, vol. 34, 1, 2 Timothy, Titus, The New American Commentary (Nashville:
Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1992), 214.
[3] New American Standard Bible: 1995 Update
(LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation, 1995), 1 Co 2:14–16.
No comments:
Post a Comment