Reformed Reasons

This blog is devoted to the written presentation defense of Christian theism. The principal essence of theology is God. Human knowledge is inescapably revelational. Man knows because God is. Reason nor science can function properly without radical transformation by God's regenerative work of grace. No other position on the subject of reason or science achieves epistemic coherence with the principle of Sola Scriptura. Τοῦτο λέγω, ἵνα μηδεὶς ὑμᾶς παραλογίζηται ἐν πιθανολογίᾳ. (Col. 2:4)

Wednesday, December 17, 2014

Apologetic Method Matters – Adam at Ratio Christi and Fred Butler on Classical versus Presuppositional Apologetics

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.

[3] Ibid.

[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.

[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.

Friday, December 12, 2014

Apologetic Method Matters – Dialoging with Ratio Christi & Fred Butler

Fred Butler over at Hip andThigh has been blogging about presuppositional apologetics as of late and I, for one, have really enjoyed what Fred has had to say. Recently, Fred has been interacting with “Adam” who apparently works for Ratio Christi, and who is a classical apologist and has a different perspective than those of us who hold to the presuppositional method. In the interest of fair disclosure Adam has assured us that he is not writing on behalf of Ratio Christi and so my remarks are directed at Adam and the classical approach in general and not at Ratio Christi. I first want to say that I appreciate my classical apologists brothers as they stand in union with us as we attempt to publish and proclaim the gospel. I realize that Christ is preached and the good news announced throughout the world by those who hold to a classical method. So this post should in no way be understood as a cause for division. It is a subject worthy of serious discussion and I suppose it will continue to be so until our Lord returns. Nevertheless, apologetic method is a very important component in our theology and evangelism efforts and we should do our best to ensure that our thoughts, words, and method are an accurate and honest reflection of God’s divine self-communication in Scripture.

I want to begin with one of the most basic issues that Adam raises when he writes:

For example, of course the Christian faith is founded in revelation found in the Bible. But there is no inconsistency in first determining whether or not the Bible is in fact trustworthy.

The first statement confesses that “Christian faith is founded in revelation found in the Bible” strikes me as odd. The Bible is itself, top to bottom, the revelation of God. The Bible does not simply contain revelation, but it is itself God’s divine revelation. Perhaps this is the root of Adam’s problem, or perhaps it was a mere faux pas. Are we in a position to judge which parts of the Bible are revelation and worthy of acceptance and which parts should be rejected as folklore, legend, and erroneous or mistaken? I cannot see how such a conclusion could be avoided using this logic.

The next statement, “But there is no inconsistency in first determining whether or not the Bible is in fact trustworthy” is simply not true. Why is it not true? It is not true because it is, in fact, inconsistent to claim that the Bible is our final authority for epistemic justification, that it is self-attesting, that it is the final arbiter of truth only then to take it back and place some other standard over the Bible before we accept it as our final authority. Not only do we have to deal with the claim the Bible makes about itself, but we also have to come up with a different standard separate from the Bible, by which we can judge it’s fidelity. And it is that standard, the standard to which we will subject the Bible in our test of its fidelity that is our final authority, and not the Bible itself. And that practice is inconsistent with the Christian system. Hence, the reason we cannot subject the Bible to an external standard in order to deem it “trustworthy” is because doing so removes the Bible as our ultimate reference point and final authority for truth. The standard we use to judge the Bible is unavoidably our final authority for what is true and worthy of belief.

Classical apologists so often consider this issue to be the product of reason, science, argumentation, and evidence. It is not. Rushdooney reminds us well, “Man does not establish authority; he acknowledges it. This is the proper procedure, though seldom observed. Man wants to acknowledge only that authority which he himself establishes or at least gives consent to. All other authority is offensive to his sense of autonomy and ultimacy.”[1] Rather than begin with God and God’s word as our ultimate reference point for human predication, classical apologetics begins with finite human reason. This fact alone proves to be inconsistent with the idea that Christian faith is grounded, not in human reason, but in the transcendent divine revelation of God Himself who is immanent with, and covenantally related to humanity. The Christian God has condescended and communicated with man, revealing to man all things about Himself and His creation that He wanted us to know. Apart from this covenantal work of God, knowledge would be impossible. To be clear, we are not arguing about whether or not intelligibility is, but rather why it is and how we can account for it. Classical apologetics begins with man while the reformed method takes us to the source.

Adam then moves to the classical trail-walk from brute facts to God by saying,

Using the classical approach, one would show that truth is knowable

From the start, this statement introduces a number of problems. What is truth? Which theory of truth is the right theory of truth and how do we know? And if we have to use that theory of truth in order to prove the theory to be true, isn’t that the epitome of vicious circular reasoning? And isn’t that something the classical method seeks to avoid at all costs? The classical method is left with the one and the many problem, if it attempts to maintain that man can reason abstractly about reality apart from God. Additionally, once we determine which theory is the right theory, shouldn’t we subject the teachings of Scripture to that theory in order to make sure the Bible is teaching truth? Of course we should if we care about being consistent. So what then is the Christian theory of truth? Christians believe that all truth is revelational truth. All truth comes through divine revelation. The Scripture is the final reference point for what must be accepted and what must be rejected as true, rather than finite human reason, and instead of the sin-impacted rules of creaturely logic. Scripture could not be clearer that Jesus is the truth, that grace and truth come through Jesus Christ, that God’s truth is liberating truth, that all wisdom and knowledge are deposited in Christ, not the philosophy of God’s enemies. Van Til would say that true human knowledge corresponds to the knowledge that God has of Himself and the world. Any knowledge that differs from that knowledge is simply not knowledge at all.

Additionally, there is no such thing as brute facts. Facts do not just exist. Facts are known in terms of their relationship with other facts. If we begin with brute facts, we shall never move beyond them. There can be no such thing as an uninterpreted fact. But if the classical enterprise is actually reflective of the state of affairs as it has obtained, then brute facts can and do exist, and if that is the case, Christian theism is false. This is because Christian theism contends that the facts of reality are precisely what God made them to be and prior to creating them, God himself interpreted them. It is the duty of man to re-interpret the facts according to God’s understanding of the facts. A soon as man interprets a fact as a thing uncreated by God he has interpreted that fact wrongly. I will come back to this in part two or perhaps a summary post.

I want to deal with one final statement before closing up part one of this two-part response. Adam wrote,

I certainly agree that evidence must be interpreted, which is one reason why William Lane Craig would argue that we must start with philosophy because this informs our interpretation.

As one who studies philosophy on an academic level, and who is trained in theology and the languages, I must confess that this statement is particularly concerning to me. The idea that theology has nothing to say until philosophy has done its work in hermeneutics is simply outrageous. The inference is that human reason sets the tone and the standard for everything to include how we begin with our most basic rules for even interpreting the Scripture. Mind you, that cannot only apply to our interpretation of the content of Scripture, but the nature of Scripture as well. The human person is elevated to a status above Scripture from top to bottom in this system. I will return to this point at the beginning of my next post.

[1] Rousas John Rushdoony, By What Standard? (Vallecito, CA: Chalcedon, 1995), 145.

Thursday, December 11, 2014

A Christian Understanding of Paradox

Before one explores the differences between a Christian understanding of paradox and the non-Christian understanding of it, it is better if one takes a look at what a paradox is according to the limitations of temporal human logic. Then, and only then will we be in a position to make this important distinction. A ‘paradox’ thus amounts to a set of claims which taken in conjunction appear to be logically inconsistent.[1] Note that Anderson has not defined a paradox as actual logical inconsistency but only the appearance of such. Later, Anderson admits, “As the debate stands today, no writer from the first to the twenty-first century has offered an explication of the doctrine of the Trinity that is both clearly orthodox and free from apparent contradiction. It seems that the careful theologian inevitably faces a dilemma: that of embracing either paradox or heterodoxy.”[2] It seems clear enough that the proponent of Christian theism needs to understand the nature of paradox and it’s relationship to the Christian worldview. This is not to say that theological paradox is beyond vindication. It is one thing to recognize and embrace the appearance of contradiction from an almost fideistic perspective and another to acknowledge its place in a system like Christian theism.

The elephant in the room is the abstract reasoning of the unbeliever. The Christian reasons differently, or let us say the Christian ought to reason differently. The issue in autonomous human philosophy is the infamous one-many problem. The Christian doctrine of the Trinity actually dissolves the one-many problem by challenging the view that reality ought to be interpreted using abstract principles. Bosserman states it eloquently, “Stated another way, the Trinity solves the one-many problem by being free from it himself, and then enabling believers to reason concretely on the basis of a systematic interpretation of reality so that they are effectively freed from it as well.”[3]

When the Christian apologist encounters accusations of contradiction, unless he addresses the fallacy of abstract reasoning, he probably deserves the criticism he receives. But the Christian apologist can, should, and must do better. If we are to faithfully publish and defend Christian truth, we must do so in a way that is reflective of and consistent with the system in which it operates. God makes no apologies for being the self-contained ontological Trinity from whom all reality flows. If we really believe what we say we believe, we must be prepared to defend the consequences of those convictions in a way that is consistent with divine revelation rather than pretending that unbelieving, abstract, autonomous reason can produce something that does not lead to absurdity.

Since modern conceptions of syllogism and logic depend on the Aristotelian framework of categories, we must undertake a fundamental reform of logic as well as of metaphysical categories.[4] Failure to recognize what should be an obvious fact for the Christian apologist and theology can be devastating to Christian thought. As a result, Christian theism becomes a sort of admixture of Plato, Aristotle, and Christ. What is worse is these ideas make their way into Christian theology and practical thinking and living within the Christian community. Moreover, the consequences of a failure on the part of apologists to recognize this important aspect in Christian reasoning can result in unnecessary criticisms and even worse, embarrassing encounters with opponents of the Christian faith. Christian theism begins with a fundamental distinction between the Creator and the creature.

By contrast, non-Christian philosophy pretends that there is only one universal level of being.[5] From the very beginning the principles involved in human reason are antithetical to those that control Christian logic. The way in which Christians reason about reality, like everything else about us, must be reformed, reshaped by the work and power of the Holy Spirit within. If it were true that the effects of sin have touched every other aspect of human existence, why would we think that logic alone remains unscathed? But that is precisely what philosophers, apologists, and even the majority of theologians believe. Only in a consistently reformed system of thought do we find the sort of expressions of Christianity revealed in Scripture coming into their own in theological systematics and in apologetic methodology.

The Christian system of thought is by definition distinct, and as a matter of fact, antithetical to the non-Christian system of thought. If Paul does not teach this in 1 Corinthians 1-2, he does not teach anything in those chapters. All that the believer needs, in order to be logically consistent in treating an apparent contradiction as an exciting impetus to greater discovery, is personal assurance from God that his revelation-based knowledge is true and sufficient, even though finite.[6] Given the claims of Christian theism as a whole, how could a dissimilar course be possible? The basic foundation of Christian theism is in fact paradoxical. An infinite Creator has created a finite being out of dirt, which was created out of nothing. It matters not how you explain this event; for the natural man, it sounds foolish within the bounds of fallen, finite logic. For the Christian, as Bosserman says above, it is an exciting impetus to greater discoveries about the world in which we live.

On this position, logical reasoning is best defined as a procedure of “implication” where the believer (a) looks through the lens of the biblical worldview upon created facts, events, qualities, etc.; (b) discerns how they are illuminated by the Christian system, and in turn constitute new contributions to it; and (c) develops a fuller portrait of the biblical worldview.[7] Contrast this with the non-believer who presupposes the laws of logic and human reason essentially in a vacuum. Logic becomes little more than a mere convention of human language, or so it is claimed or at least that is the essential conclusion whether it is admitted or not. Rather than being guided by the transcendent, self-contained ontological Triune God of Scripture, the non-Christian places all his faith in the mere accident of the human mind, which is in essence the unavoidable, the product of chance. Far too many of us unwittingly subscribe to the doctrine of John Locke, who said, “nothing that is contrary to, and inconsistent with, the clear and self-evident dictates of reason, has a right to be urged or assented to as a matter of faith, wherein reason hath nothing to do.”[8] In Locke’s system, human reason is the final bar for judging all things to include what is and is not divine revelation. Man is the final measure and ultimate reference point for human predication. Far too often, Christian apologists inadvertently expose this as one of their own deep convictions without realizing just how antithetical it is to Christian theology and how devastating it can be to a consistent and biblically faithful defense of the gospel.

The Christian then fully embraces this understanding of paradox recognizing that Scripture enthusiastically affirms that such is the case. Finite human reason, created logic, must be reformed because like everything else, it has been woefully affected by sin. We must humbly reason analogically, thinking God’s thoughts after Him while recognizing that His thoughts are higher than our thoughts and because this truth has been clearly revealed in Scripture, we can have confidence that paradoxes, rather than threatening Christian truth, are a natural outcome of it.

[1] James Anderson, Paradox in Christian Theology: An Analysis of Its Presence, Character, and Epistemic Status, Paternoster Theological Monographs (Eugene, Or.: Wipf & Stock, 2007), 5-6.

[2] Ibid. 59.

[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), 85.

[4] Vern S. Poythress, Logic: A God-Centered Approach to the Foundation of Western Thought (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2013), 669.

[5] Ibid, 670.

[6] 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), 89.

[7] 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), 89-90.