In a recent article published in Philosophia Christi,
Richard Swinburne came to the following conclusion: “I conclude that unless my assessment
of how probable the evidence of natural theology makes the existence of God is very
badly mistaken, it is very probable that Jesus was God incarnate and that he
rose from the dead.” Now, isn’t that a forceful, impressive, and eloquent way to
speak about what Christianity claims is the single greatest event in all of
human history. Before I begin commenting on Mr. Swinburne’s astounding conclusion
and the confidence with which he makes it, the reader needs to understand that
I come to this subject as a theologian and biblical exegete, not a philosopher.
I am an apologist, but only in the sense that I think every believer has a duty
to engage in apologetics. However, my education and training are not in
philosophy. My education is in theology, systematics, and the biblical
languages, in hermeneutics. Therefore, what my scrutiny and criticism will lack
in philosophical rigor, it will certainly compensate for in theological and
exegetical carefulness.
The fundamental problem with Swinburne’s approach is that it
does not appeal to Scripture for its epistemic authority, but rather to human
reason. It is obvious that Swinburne appeals to human reason, to argumentation,
to historical evidence as his final authority for believing that Jesus was God
incarnate and that He rose from the dead. In fact, what Swinburne really
believes is that it is reasonable for a person to believe that Jesus is God
incarnate because the historical evidence makes it highly probable that He was.
Swinburne and other non-reformed philosophers and so-called apologists
continually accept the criteria of justification that godless philosophers
place on them. The unregenerate rationalists and empiricists insist that all
beliefs must meet their criteria in order to qualify as true knowledge. Since
these philosophers use inductive logic, which is based on probability, certain
knowledge is impossible. If a Christian does not challenge this strategy at the
beginning, their conversation will be wrought with insurmountable objections.
The resurrection can only serve as evidence for Christian
theism within the world of the regenerate. The problem with Swinburne’s view is
that he and other philosophers separate the epistemological significance of the
resurrection from its soteriological function. This sort of reasoning fails to
adequately account for the ethical problem deeply embedded in unregenerate
epistemologies. Natural theology is far too optimistic in its estimation of man’s
ethical neutrality where epistemology is concerned. Scripture is clear on this
point: “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His
eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood
through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.” (Rom. 1:20) The
Greek word translated “without excuse” is ἀναπολογήτους (anapologetous) and it literally means without an apologetic.
There is no philosophical defense for refusing to acknowledge God, according to
Romans 1:20. It is amazing to me that with great frequency, Christian philosophers
actually pretend there is one. Since Scripture already says that God Himself
has furnished all the proof that every unbeliever need in order to acknowledge
Him, we need not waste our time trying to provide them with more proofs. Are we
silly enough to think that our arguments and proofs are somehow superior to or
more effective than the ones God has etched in their conscience and placed in
front of their noses?
I read Swinburne’s
quote to my wife this morning and I asked her to tell me what was wrong with
it. She immediately said that she did not like the sentence “it is very
probable that Jesus was God incarnate and that he rose from the dead.” I asked
her to explain to me why she believed the statement was wrong. Her answer was
very simple but also quite profound: “because it is not true.” I asked her to
elaborate. She quipped, “Jesus actually is God and actually did raise from the
dead and so to say that he probably is and did these things is false.” The
truth is that my wife is absolutely correct.
A major objection to Swinburne’s statement is that biblical
Christianity does not teach that it is highly probable that God exists, that Jesus
was probably God incarnate, and that He probably rose from the dead. Hence, Swinburne
is essentially defending a belief that is not included within Christian theism.
Christian theism teaches forcefully and with absolute certainty that Jesus Christ
was God incarnate, that He absolutely rose from the dead for our justification,
and that all those who place their faith in Him will have eternal life.
Additionally, Christian theism certifies without any hint of doubt that those
who reject this message of the gospel of God will surely perish and come under eternal
wrath, time without end.
Another challenge concerns the reliance on probability as a
valid method for arriving at what is likely the truth. What else must
absolutely be true in order for probability to be true? The answer is that the validity
of uniformity must be true in order for probability to be valid. We must be
able to show that there is a relationship between the general and the
particular. This is exactly what the unbeliever cannot do. He assumes such a
relationship exists but he cannot provide an adequate accounting for it. If the
world came to exist on its own, randomly, by accident, without a cause, then
there is no way for us to account for any relationship between the general and
the particular. Chance and uniformity are not exactly related. As we would say
in the south, they’re not even distant cousins. In fact, they are opposites.
Why then do Christian philosophers feel compelled to accept basic beliefs about how the world operates when these beliefs are in clear contradiction, not
only with Christian theism, but also with the system with which they argue? It
makes very little sense as far as I can tell.
Romans one clearly informs Christians that God has made
Himself known to all men. ὁ θεὸς γὰρ αὐτοῖς ἐφανέρωσεν is
very clear. For God made it very plain to them. The word means to cause
something to be fully known by revealing clearly and in some detail—‘to make
known, to make plain, to reveal, to bring to the light, to disclose,
revelation. This very same word is used in 2 Cor. 5:11, θεῷ δὲ πεφανερώμεθα, we are fully known by God.
Jesus used it in John 14:21 where He promised to make Himself known to the one
keeping God’s commandments. Therefore, when the unbeliever claims they do not
know if God exists or when they claim that God does not exist, they lie. The
question for the Christian is will we go along with that lie. Will we grant to
them that which Scripture denies?
In short Swinburne’s view does not hold up under scrutiny.
The very systems that use probability as a reliable test for knowledge cannot
stand up under the scrutiny of their own basic claims. For instance, what happens
when probability is turned on itself in a random universe? How probable is it
that this world would exist in the first place? It was a one-time event. Probability
does not work with one-time events. The Christ event was a one-time event. The resurrection
was a one-time event. Supernatural creation of humanity was a one-time event.
In addition, probability would never be the most likely
explanation for a miracle of any kind. Deceit, or delusion or exaggeration
would always trump supernatural phenomena in terms of probability. It would
always be more probable that someone is lying, or suffering a delusion or
simply exaggerating than it would that a miracle occurred. Hence, if we concede
this point of probability, the entire system of Christian theism collapses.
Christians are called to give an account for the hope that
is in them. We are under no obligation to squabble with unbelievers over the
existence of God or the truthfulness of the claims of Scripture. We are under
an obligation to refute claims that contradict the teachings of Scripture. But
that refutation does not take on the philosophical nature of unbelieving
presuppositions. The refutation is Scripture. How do we refute error? We
do it the same way Jesus did it: with Scripture. We don’t need to argue for why
we call upon Scripture as our sole authority, outside of appealing to Scripture
itself. The unbeliever cannot possibly defend their ultimate authority of
autonomous human reason. They expect us to assume that human reason is
completely reliable. But we all know that is not the case.
To argue that God probably exists, and that the Bible is
probably God’s word, and that Jesus is probably God incarnate, and that He
probably rose from the dead is also to argue that we are all probably saved and
that Jesus is only probably returning one day and that divine judgment will
probably happen in the future, probably. For God who probably exists probably so loved the world that He probably gave his only begotten Son! Is that the gospel? I can say with absolute certainty that
this, ladies and gentlemen is not the Christian gospel. I believe it is time we begin to wrest the gospel from these philosophers that foolishly think that Christ and Aristotle can be friends. I think it could not be clearer that they are mortal enemies.
No comments:
Post a Comment