The writer finds himself in complete agreement with those who insist that
Christianity is supremely rational.[1] With all due respect to Dr. Whitcomb, this
begs the question as to the use of reason by the Christian versus the use of
reason by the non-Christian. Christianity is indeed rational, but by who’s
standard. To accept fully the concept of the infallible Word is to claim all
facts for God and to insist that reality can only be interpreted in terms of
Him and His Word.[2]
Human reason must be understood and interpreted according to God’s revelation.
It is by divine standards that we must ascertain an understanding of human
reason. Christian theism is infinitely rational but it is rational as God
Himself defines and is the expression of rationality, not as finite fallen
humans would define it. The covenantal nature of our relationship with God
extends to all parts of the relationship. There remains no component of the
Creator-creature relationship that is outside the purview of the covenant. This
obligates men to use every one of God’s created tools, especially creaturely
logic, in a manner that accords with the terms of the covenant. This would mean
that it is inappropriate and strictly forbidden to place God or His Word under
any created rule of finite human reason, to include human logic. This is
especially the case when that logic is the product of finite abstract
reasoning.
Bosserman helps us understand how Christian
thought can be logical while confidently embracing theological paradox when he
writes, “However, pursuit of an appreciation for how distinct features and
components (a) imply one another when viewed through the lens of a common
system, and then (b) together enhance our perspective on that system is (on our
account) one of the most basic characteristics of a concrete reasoning
process.”[3]
Bosserman points us to the example of flesh and bones and how the two are not
at all the same thing but when understood through the lens of the human body
our perspective of them is enhanced. Theological paradox works in a similar
fashion. The divine condescension of God in the OT implies the divine
incarnation in the NT. When viewed separately the two appear as contradictions
but when viewed together, through the lens of the Christian system, each act is
enhanced by the other so that our understanding of the divine revelation is
deepened even though the paradox lingers on in what many theologians call mystery.
In place of the Triune person, the unbeliever
embraces as his triad of, too often unarticulated, presuppositions: (a) human
autonomy, (b) abstract reason, and (c) brute facts.[4]
The unbeliever sets himself up as the final reference point, creates his own
system of justification, and proceeds to treat facts as if they were the
product of impersonal chance.
The issue we face is one of authority. It
always comes back to the standard by which truth claims are justified. And at
the very bottom of this issue there are two and only two possibilities: man or
God. The unbeliever generally has three dominant theories at his disposal today
when it comes to epistemic justification. One, a belief is justified when
formed through a valid procedure that is translucent to the believer himself.
Two, true beliefs are justified to the degree that they are mutually supportive
of other true beliefs. Finally, beliefs are justified only if they form a
healthy/reliable belief-forming mechanism.[5]
Here we see that from one school of thought to the next, man remains the
measure of all things. Man determines what is and it not true belief using
finite abstract reasoning as his standard and final authority. Far too often,
modern apologists fail to recognize the foundational presuppositions upon which
unbelievers operate. What is worse, many schools of apologetics have
unwittingly constructed their method on those same unbelieving principles. Van
Til writes, “The Reformed apologist will frankly admit that his own methodology
presupposes the truth of Christian theism. Basic to all the doctrines of
Christian theism is that of the self-contained God, or if we wish, that of the
ontological Trinity. It is this notion of the ontological Trinity that
ultimately controls a truly Christian methodology.[6] If
we were to take all the underlying objectives of Christian apologetics and ask
what we are doing when we do apologetics, the answer would be that we are
vindicating the divine self-disclosure of the God of Christian theism. The
revelation of God is ubiquitous from the standpoint that every part of that
revelation is a revelation of the self-contained ontological Trinity. This
indicates that if there is theological paradox in the doctrine of the Trinity,
and vindicating this doctrine is the essential thrust of Christian apologetics,
then it only follows that Christian apologetics must reflect that paradox in
it’s method of vindication as a matter of routine.
It is a sad state of affairs however, in
modern apologetic method. Rather than begin with God and with God’s self-disclosure
in Scripture and hold that up as our final reference point for human
predication, we begin with pagan philosophy, secular science, and finite
abstract reasoning. The insistence is that apologetic method must get in line
and march in lock step with the rules of godless autonomous men rather than
divine revelation. William Lane Craig, who is in his own right a brilliant
philosopher, exhibits a mindset that should be very disconcerting to any
God-fearing, Bible-believing apologist when he writes, “One of the awesome
tasks of Christian philosophers is to help turn the contemporary intellectual
tide in such a way as to foster a sociocultural milieu in which Christian faith
can be regarded as an intellectually credible option for thinking men and
women.”[7] Regrettably,
this is the attitude of most apologists operating in conservative Christian
communities today. Compare and contrast this with what Paul had to say,
And when I came to you, brethren, I
did not come with superiority of speech or of wisdom, proclaiming to you the
testimony of God. For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus
Christ, and Him crucified. I was with you in weakness and in fear and in much
trembling, and my message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of
wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith
would not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God.[8]
Paul’s
words stand in stark contrast with Craig’s idea. Because of the inherent
antithesis present in unbelieving thought, the only way to accomplish Craig’s
aspiration is to adopt a willing attitude to subject the claims and demands of
Scripture to the authority of autonomous human reason. The gospel of Jesus
Christ does not present itself in a way that men are asked to judge it’s
fidelity, or it’s authority or it’s right to lay claim to our lives. The gospel
of Christ demands repentance from the current autonomous mindset of arrogant,
fallen, sinful men. The idea that we must utilize an apologetic method or
subscribe to theological beliefs that somehow do not offend the intellects of
sworn enemies of God is quite simply a clear and obvious contradiction to the
teachings of Scripture. While theological paradox is warmly embraced as
unavoidable in Christian theism, obvious contradictions to divine revelation
must be vigorously opposed and rejected due to the fact that they are nothing
more than expressions of human autonomy.
[1]
John C. Whitcomb, “Contemporary
Apologetics and the Christian Faith,” Bibliotheca
Sacra: A Quarterly Published by Dallas Theological Seminary (Dallas, TX:
Dallas Theological Seminary, 1955–1995).
[2] Rousas John
Rushdoony, By What Standard? An Analysis of the Philosophy of Cornelius
van Til, repr. ed. (Vallecito, Calif.: Ross House Books, 1995), 1.
[3]
B.A.
Bosserman, The Trinity and the Vindication of Christian Paradox: an
Interpretation and Refinement of the Theological Apologetic of Cornelius van
Til (Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2014), 138.
[4] Ibid., 10.
[6] Cornelius Van Til, Christian
Apologetics, 2nd ed., ed. William Edgar (Phillipsburg, N.J.: P&R Pub.,
2003), 128.
[7] James Porter Moreland and
William Lane Craig, Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview (Downers
Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2003), 2.
[8] New
American Standard Bible: 1995 Update (LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation,
1995), 1 Co 2:1–5.
No comments:
Post a Comment