I am going to pick up where I left off with
Adam’s endorsement of William Lane Craig’s view that philosophy takes primacy
of place in the field of Christian apologetics, and theology as well for that
matter, and to put it bluntly, all things requiring any sort of interpretive
exercise whatsoever. In other words, if it requires human interpretation,
philosophy is the magistrate under whose domain it resides. Since it is to
Craig that Adam points, it is to Craig we shall turn in order to understand why
it is philosophy rather than theology as derived from sound biblical exegesis
that should dictate the accuracy and truthfulness of our interpretations of
reality, knowledge, and ethics.
One does
not have to read far in Craig’s philosophy project in order to understand where
he thinks philosophy fits in Christian theology: He writes, “Because philosophy
operates at a presuppositional level by clarifying and justifying the
presuppositions of a discipline, philosophy is the only field of study that has
no unquestioned assumptions within its own domain.”[1] In
other words, only philosophy is objectively pure. Only in philosophy is there
neutrality. And that neutrality can be leveraged to serve as the standard for
all human predication. If philosophy or human reason has a better explanation
for biblical revelation, then our theology must be reworked, and our
interpretation revised in order to satisfy that standard. Robert Marrihew Adams
poses an excellent question in his article on Kierkegaard’s “Arguments Against
Objective Reasoning in Religion” when he asks, “If you are willing to abandon
your ostensibly religious beliefs for the sake of objective inquiry, mightn’t
we justly say that objective inquiry is your real religion, the thing to which
you are most deeply committed?”[2]
One has to ask if faith ought to be thought of as unconditional devotion to a
belief.[3]
And in this case, is it not fair to ask proponents of Classical Apologetics if
their real religion is objective evidence, science, and autonomous human reason
rather than the uncomplicated revelation of God speaking to us in the
revelation of Scripture? I think it is entirely fair top to bottom to raise
this as an issue because I think it is the
issue, that is, the defining difference between the classical and the
presuppositional methods.
Is
Craig’s claim that philosophy has no unquestioned assumptions correct and does
it even matter? Let us ask this question without the double negative. Is it
true that every assumption in the field of philosophy is questioned? Whether or
not that is actually true seems irrelevant to me. I can question everything
that is claimed by every system making a claim and that really tells me nothing
about the soundness of my method. A crazy person could take up such a practice.
Would that mean he is a genius? In all seriousness, if it really is the case
that every assumption has to be subjected to questions, then how are we ever
going to get the philosophical train out of the station and on it’s way. Why is
this important? I think it is obvious why this is important. If Craig’s claim
is true, we would have an infinite regress of questions in rational inquiry,
and as a result, no claims could ever be made. It is the nature of finitude to
end someplace so that human predication can have a starting point. So Craig’s
claim that philosophy is as pure as the driven snow when it comes to
objectivity and neutrality strikes me as simply wrong. Not only this, it is not
at all obvious to me how this view does not lead to an arbitrary subjectivism
and ultimately, skepticism.
There
are two fundamental roles that philosophy attempts to play on the playground of
human predication. First, philosophy has the critical task of putting questions
to certain claims. But even this task must have some starting point. It must
assume some basic things, like my questions are valid, my inquiry is
meaningful, truth is discoverable, err is possible. Second, philosophy has the
constructive task of providing a positive statement for what reality, the
world, life, knowledge, and morality are all about. Philosophy wants to
construct a worldview by which humans may understand their world and order
their lives in a way that is meaningful and intelligible. However, one must
understand that there are only two options open to philosophers (and we are all
philosophers) in order to get the project of philosophy off the ground: either
human reason will serve as the standard by which all claims are measured, or,
God’s divine revelation will serve as the standard by which all claims are
measured. Either man will be the ultimate reference point for human knowledge
or God will be that reference point. Note that this is a decision that has to
be made before philosophy can even
begin. How will we go about deciding the answer? This is the famous chicken and the egg
dilemma. But this dilemma is a bit more serious than eggs and toast. Notice
that we have to have some very basic presuppositions, assumptions, that is,
unchallenged assumptions before we can even get going. The house of human
knowledge, because it is finite and dependent, must rest upon something other
than itself if it is to refute the charge of hanging in mid-air.
Aristotle
told us that if we wish to succeed, we must ask the right preliminary
questions. If, then, we wish to succeed theologically, may we straightaway
begin talking of God, or is there something we must say, or do, beforehand?[4]
Can we begin with the idea that we all have the same information about God?
Does not Calvin inform us that we all know God? There is within the human mind,
and indeed by natural instinct, an awareness of divinity. This we take to be
beyond controversy.[5] If
this is all there were to the state of affairs that has obtained, then perhaps
Craig and the classical approach may be a sound way of approaching this issue. Moreover, if this actually is a reflection of the
state of affairs as it is, then we must ask the question “why revelation?” If
man is created in a way that he can actually reason, contemplate, calculate,
and investigate matters from a neutral standpoint and reach the right
conclusions on his own steam, then why do we need revelation at all? In fact,
what happened at the fall? I am afraid that we have not heard the other side of
the story and as you will hopefully see; the difference between classical and
presuppositional apologetics is actually informed by basic theological
commitments, which are either informed by the exegesis of divine revelation or
by pagan philosophy. This is where the argument actually lives.
They do
not apprehend God as he offers himself, but imagine him as they have fashioned
him in their own presumption.[6]
The point is that basic commitments are already at play before the
investigation even starts. Moreover, it makes the profoundest difference in
where you begin and how you proceed if you are a Christian or a non-Christian.
In fact, no other single factor could even come close to having the impact that
this question has on where you begin and how you proceed than “are you a
Bible-believing Christian?” If this question has no impact on your metaphysic,
your epistemology, and your ethic, then I am not sure a rational conversation
is even possible, let along fruitful and promising.
The
vital interpretative question for postmoderns is simply this: what makes one
interpretation better than any others?[7] When the Christian begins his interpretation of the world, to include his
interpretation of the art of interpretation, his only option is to begin with
God. The reason the Christian begins with God is because, “In the beginning
God.” If God has not preceded the beginning and had not acted in the beginning,
the Christian contends we could know, understand, or interpret nothing.
Intelligibility would be impossible. God acts in the beginning to create and to
communicate. Neither interpretation nor interpretative approaches are
innocent.[8]
Scripture
not only presents itself as self-attesting, and as our sole authority for human
predication, it presents itself as self-interpreting. Scripture provides our
standard, not only for understanding reality, God, the commandments, but it
also serves as our basic paradigm for meaningful communication. Scripture
should be viewed as divine communicative action. Scripture is not Paul, or
Peter or Moses speaking, but rather, God speaking. Again, Scripture is God
speaking. I submit that God is present in Scripture precisely as a
communicative agent, its ultimate author.[9]
A
Christian philosophy of metaphysics states plainly that “In the beginning God
created.” Additionally, God holds all things together by the word of His power.
Moreover, Hebrews 11:3 informs us that we understand metaphysics by faith. “Faith
enables us to understand that the visible universe was created by something
invisible, namely, by the word of God. The suggestion that πίστει be taken with κατηρτίσθαι, meaning that it was by faith
that God created the world (Widdess, Haacker 1969) has little to commend it;
faith is not elsewhere predicated of God in Hebrews, and this construction
would make ῥήματι θεοῦ
redundant.”[10]
A Christian
philosophy of epistemology states that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of
knowledge (Prov. 1:7). Moreover, that same Scripture tells us that those who do
not seek the Lord actually hate knowledge (Prov. 1:29) contrary to what we are
told by so many pagan philosophers and some misguided Christian philosophers.
Additionally, Paul tells us that all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are
deposited in Christ (Col. 2:3). Again, A Christian philosophy that is derived
from sound biblical exegesis informs that the all men know God and suppress
that knowledge (Rom. 1:18-19), that unregenerate men are not willing or even able
to understand spiritual truth (1 Cor. 2:14), that the god of this world has
blinded their eyes (2 Cor. 4:4), and finally, unregenerate men walk in the
futility of their mind, by nature having their understanding corrupted with
darkness (Eph. 4:17-24).
Finally
a Christian philosophy of ethics is grounded in the commandment that we ought
to love the Lord our God with our entire being and to love our neighbor as
ourselves. Rather than seeing the good in humanity, as pagan philosophy and all
unbelieving thought does, Christian philosophy takes a distinctly different
view of man. A biblically informed Christian philosophy of ethics claims that man is
dead in his trespasses and sin (Eph. 2:1), that no man is good in terms of his
disposition toward God (Rom. 3:10-18), and that unregenerate men are enemies of
God (Rom. 8:6-8). All men have been placed under sin and are under the curse
(Gal. 3:22).
From
this it can be concluded that the sort of neutrality required in order for
autonomous human reason or philosophy if you prefer, is impossible and
therefore, secular philosophy is incapable of providing for the sort of
objective, stand-alone criteria humanity requires in order to make human
experience intelligible. This is true for our philosophy of reality, of
knowledge, and morality. Sin has placed man under a curse and his ethical
disposition places him at odds with divine revelation in every area of
knowledge. Under this scheme, human predication is reduced to skepticism because
it fails to anchor its metaphysic, it’s epistemology, and it’s ethic in the
divine action of God speaking in Scripture. And it is precisely this God that Christian apologetics is
called forth and duty-bound to proclaim and defend.
[1] James Porter Moreland and William Lane
Craig, Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview (Downers
Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2003), 13.
[2] Baruch A. Brody, ed., Readings in the Philosophy of Religion: An Analytic Approach, 2nd ed. (Englewood Cliffs,
N.J.: Prentice Hall, ©1992), 55.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Kevin J. Vanhoozer, First Theology: God,
Scripture and Hermeneutics (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press,
©2002), 15.
[5] Calvin,
Jean. The Library of Christian Classics. Translated by Ford Lewis
Battles. 2 vols. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, [2001?] Vol. 1,
43.
[6] Ibid., 47.
[7] Kevin J. Vanhoozer, First Theology: God,
Scripture and Hermeneutics (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press,
©2002), 23.
[8] Kevin J. Vanhoozer, First Theology: God,
Scripture and Hermeneutics (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press,
©2002), 23.
[9] Ibid., 34.
[10] Paul Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on
the Greek Text, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids,
MI; Carlisle: W.B. Eerdmans; Paternoster Press, 1993), 568.
No comments:
Post a Comment