In his project
with J.P. Moreland, “Philosophical Foundations For A Christian Worldview,
William Lane Craig gives us a glimpse into his philosophy on the capabilities of the unregenerate mind. Apparently Craig believes there is no innate antipathy in
unbelieving thought. Craig writes, “The fact that there is tremendous interest
among unbelieving students in hearing a rational presentation and defense of
the gospel, and some will be ready to respond with truth in Christ.”[1]
You see Craig is displaying a specific philosophy regarding the nature of the
unregenerate mind. In order for Craig’s statement to be true, the unregenerate
mind must be in a condition of neutrality as it relates to God and His divine
truth. The best approach to examine Craig’s statement is to turn to Scripture
and allow Scripture to inform our philosophy in this case. We will perform a
critical analysis of Craig’s philosophy regarding the nature of the
unregenerate mind by examining it in light of the divine Scripture.
The apostle Paul
explains in Romans 8:6-8 that the mind that is set on the flesh, which the
unregenerate mind surely is, is hostile toward God. What does Paul mean
“hostile toward God?” The Greek lexicon tells us that the word ἔχθρα means a state of enmity, or to be an enemy.
It is to have ill will, or hatred for someone. It described the state between
Russia and the USA during the cold war, or any two warring countries as far as
that goes.
The same apostle Paul informs the Galatian Churches in
Gal. 5:17 that the fleshly state or
mindset or worldview sets its desires against the things that are spiritual and
the spiritual mindset or worldview sets its desires against the fleshly or
unregenerate worldview. The antithesis could not be more axiomatic. The apostle
Paul reveals a view, a philosophy if you like, that informs his readers that he
sees the unregenerate worldview and mindset as fundamentally hostile toward
God. The contrast between how the regenerate and unregenerate think could not
be more obvious in Paul’s theology. Does Paul think that the unregenerate worldview
is really the product of a lack of rational argumentation and evidence? Is the
unregenerate intellect really the product of the intellect itself or is it
something beyond the intellect that does in fact affect the unregenerate
mindset?
Our third truth, once again given through the beloved
apostle Paul, is that the unregenerate mind is in such a state that it rejects
the things of the Spirit of God. In fact, Paul tells us in 1 Cor. 2:14 that the
unregenerate worldview holds spiritual matters in utter contempt and considers
them moronic at best. The Greek word moria is where we get our word moron. It
is this word Paul uses to describe the unregenerate intellect’s contempt for
spiritual matters.
Another example of the unregenerate mindset is located in
Romans 3:10-18. Paul tells the Roman Church that unregenerate men do not
understand, do not seek God, are altogether useless, and that there is no fear
of God before them. If the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom and
knowledge, and there is no fear of God within them, then it logically follows
that they have no interest in true knowledge and wisdom. Adding to this state
is the state Paul described two chapters earlier to the same Church. Romans one
tells us explicitly that God has given the unregnerate man all the information
and evidence he needs. God has made Himself known to them and has given them an
inexcusable amount of evidence all around them. Truly, the knowledge of God is
inescapable for the unbeliever.
Another place where Paul gives us a glimpse into the mindset
of the unregenerate is located in 2 Cor. 4:4 where he is clear and adamant that
the unregenerate mind has been blinded so that they might not see the light of
the gospel of the glory of Christ. Moving back a few sentences, Paul refers to
the same state existing among the Jews, telling us their minds were hardened
and that until his very day the veil remains. (1 Cor. 3:14) Another example is
given by Paul to the Philippian Church in Phil. 3:18-19 where Paul describes
men whose minds are set on earthly things as enemies of the cross, whose end is
destruction, whose god is their appetite, and whose glory is their shame.
Robert Duncan Culver writes, "In Pauline literature
acts of sin proceed from a sinful heart. Paul's figures for this sin at the
center are 'the sin,' 'the body of sin,' 'our old man,' 'this body of death,'
'flesh,' 'the body of sin and death,' and 'the carnal mind.' All are figurative
expressions for the sinful 'heart' which in turn is a figure for the center of
man's rational being."[2]
Clearly Paul's anthropology and hamartiology have not been affected by Greek
philosophy. The fountainhead of Paul's philosophy, in you insist on calling it
that, is divine revelation. He anchors his view of man and sin in Adam, in
creation, and moves from there. Absent from Paul's language is anything
remotely resembling the philosophy of Aristotle, Plato, or Socrates.
Finally, from a philosophical point of view, Craig
operates on an unproven and in my opinion, a mistaken assumption. He uses the
phrase "rational presentation and defense of the gospel." Craig seems
to think their is such a thing as neutrality in human reason. However, what
makes a view reasonable in terms of unbelieving thought is not at all without
controversy even though Craig seems to indicate that he thinks it is. The
philosophers spend large amounts of time arguing to the contrary. There is no
agreed upon criteria accepted by these young students at university by which
the gospel might be tested and deemed acceptable in their eyes, as if such an
approach is morally acceptable within Christian theism to begin with.
Craig's philosophy is contrary to a clear biblical
theology regarding the nature of fallen man as well as the nature of sin. In
addition, he begs the question of criteria in his view that all these students
measure knowledge or true beliefs by the same standard. They do not. The
unregenerate worldview is opposed to Christian theism from end to end. The two
have a radically different metaphysic, epistemology, and ethic. Only divine
revelation is capable of bridging the gap to make contact between the two possible.
No comments:
Post a Comment