Month: May 2011

Can We Study God Without Scripture?

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. I’ve been looking at the topic of presuppositionalism lately and tonight, I’d like to look more at the topic of natural theology in this area and see if we can truly study God without special revelation.

Theology is the study of God. God can be studied either through special revelation or general revelation. Suppose you have a new neighbor move in. How can you know this person? You could know them by studying humanity in general and that would give you some information about the person, or you could get to know them simply by ringing the doorbell and letting them tell you about themselves.

Can we know God by only the first way? To an extent. You will get some true beliefs if you do natural theology right, but your certainty of them can be lacking and it will not be as efficient as God revealing Himself. However, let us not be too quick to throw out natural theology as useless.

The way we study God in natural theology involves what is called metaphysics. Now metaphysics is one of those terms that’s often tossed around in philosophical circles, but it is not really defined. However, if you use it, you can get the impression of being an intellectual and sound really cool while just using the term as a catch-all.

Let’s go ahead and explain metaphysics then. Metaphysics is the study of being as being. Physics is the study of material being in motion. Angelology is the study of angelic being. Zoology is the study of animal being. Botany is the study of plant being. You get the idea of where this is going.

Metaphysics has that contrast because while the other sciences study a particular type of being, this science studies being as it is. There is no doubt that a physicist could very well, and likely does know very well, more about matter in motion than the metaphysician, but the physicist likely will not know as much about that matter in motion as being. (Particularly if he’s a new atheist.)

Note that metaphysics is NOT the study of God. However, God is included in the subject of metaphysics. How? Let’s go back to your neighbor again. Studying anthropology will involve having your neighbor be a subject of that study, but your neighbor is not the particular object of that study. Anthropology does not exist to tell you about your neighbor in particular but your neighbor as a human being. Metaphysics tells you about God based on His relationship to being.

For Aquinas, God’s very essence IS being. Whatever it means to be is to be found in God and so studying being as being will give information about God. All being is true, good, and beautiful, for instance. From these, Aquinas did develop numerous doctrines of God, though of course not original with him. The main one after existence was simplicity. God’s existence IS his essence.

Note that in looking at natural theology, Aquinas does not cover concepts like the Trinity, although he believes in them. These cannot be known through natural theology. Consider for a parallel studying history. By history, you could know that Jesus was crucified on a cross even without the New Testament. You need revelation however to know that Jesus died for the sins of the world. A simple study of history apart from the revelation of God being read directly or communicated through others would not reveal that.

So can God be studied without Scripture? Yes. Will it be as good? No. Still, it is important and we must remember our reason is not antithetical or opposed to Scripture, but a tool God gave to help us understand Him and His revelation better.

Bahnsen on Aquinas

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. I’d like to continue tonight examining the position of presuppositionalism. I have before me Greg Bahnsen’s book which I have read called “Van Til’s Apologetic.” In looking at natural theology, Bahnsen has a few criticisms of Aquinas, but upon looking at the criticisms, it seems that Bahnsen is not really familiar with the works of Aquinas. For one thing, not one of Aquinas’s writings is ever directly cited that I know of. That having been said, let’s look at those points to be examined.

On page 557, Bahnsen says that Aquinas and Joseph Butler, who I will not be talking about, both say a great deal about what man is and what reality is before discussing the existence of God or the truth of Christianity.

Really?

I simply ask anyone to go to the Summa Theologica. Here in order are the main sections.

Sacred Doctrine.

The One God.

The Blessed Trinity.

Creation.

The Angels (Spirit).

The Six Days (Matter).

Man (Spirit and Matter).

In fact, the very first question raised about man directly is question 75.

Yes. Aquinas obviously spent a great deal on man before getting to God. Had the Summa simply been picked up and looked through, this statement would not have been made.

Much of the condemnation of natural theology is the belief that man can know God as He is by reason alone. At least, that is what we are often accused of saying. However, let’s see what Aquinas himself really says about the importance of sacred doctrine in the very first question of the Summa.

I answer that, It was necessary for man’s salvation that there should be a knowledge revealed by God besides philosophical science built up by human reason. Firstly, indeed, because man is directed to God, as to an end that surpasses the grasp of his reason: “The eye hath not seen, O God, besides Thee, what things Thou hast prepared for them that wait for Thee” (Isaiah 64:4). But the end must first be known by men who are to direct their thoughts and actions to the end. Hence it was necessary for the salvation of man that certain truths which exceed human reason should be made known to him by divine revelation. Even as regards those truths about God which human reason could have discovered, it was necessary that man should be taught by a divine revelation; because the truth about God such as reason could discover, would only be known by a few, and that after a long time, and with the admixture of many errors. Whereas man’s whole salvation, which is in God, depends upon the knowledge of this truth. Therefore, in order that the salvation of men might be brought about more fitly and more surely, it was necessary that they should be taught divine truths by divine revelation. It was therefore necessary that besides philosophical science built up by reason, there should be a sacred science learned through revelation.

Note that God is seen as one who surpasses the grasp of the reason of man. Aquinas says that there are truths that exceed human reason which God Himself must have revealed if they are to be known.

Second, Aquinas does say there are truths about God that can be discovered by reason unaided by special revelation, however, these would only be found by a few, because only a few would be intellectually capable, it would be after much time, because it would take a long time to work out the doctrine, and it would contain many errors, due to the difficulty of the subject.

Third, the reason these were revealed was that it was necessary for our salvation. Note that Aquinas says that if all you have is reason, you will not reach salvation. This is a far cry from the way that traditionalism is usually presented as having a low view of Scripture.

On page 629, Bahnsen tells us that if Aquinas wants to say he knows God exists, he is obligated to tell us everything about God. Why? Note that Aquinas does say there are several aspects of the nature of God that can be known. However, there are several that cannot be known.

Bahnsen tells us on the same page that if Thomas the theologian hears that God created the universe out of nothing and tells this to Thomas the philosopher, that the philosopher will say that this cannot be known.

Bahnsen is not treating Aquinas fairly here again. Let’s see what Aquinas says in Question 46 of the Prima Pars of the Summa in the second article.

On the contrary, The articles of faith cannot be proved demonstratively, because faith is of things “that appear not” (Hebrews 11:1). But that God is the Creator of the world: hence that the world began, is an article of faith; for we say, “I believe in one God,” etc. And again, Gregory says (Hom. i in Ezech.), that Moses prophesied of the past, saying, “In the beginning God created heaven and earth”: in which words the newness of the world is stated. Therefore the newness of the world is known only by revelation; and therefore it cannot be proved demonstratively.

Note here what Aquinas says. Aquinas does not say that the truth that God created the world cannot be known. He says it cannot be proven by demonstration. There is nothing wrong with such a statement. Consider what he says right after that:

I answer that, By faith alone do we hold, and by no demonstration can it be proved, that the world did not always exist, as was said above of the mystery of the Trinity (32, 1). The reason of this is that the newness of the world cannot be demonstrated on the part of the world itself. For the principle of demonstration is the essence of a thing. Now everything according to its species is abstracted from “here” and “now”; whence it is said that universals are everywhere and always. Hence it cannot be demonstrated that man, or heaven, or a stone were not always. Likewise neither can it be demonstrated on the part of the efficient cause, which acts by will. For the will of God cannot be investigated by reason, except as regards those things which God must will of necessity; and what He wills about creatures is not among these, as was said above (Question 19, Article 3). But the divine will can be manifested by revelation, on which faith rests. Hence that the world began to exist is an object of faith, but not of demonstration or science. And it is useful to consider this, lest anyone, presuming to demonstrate what is of faith, should bring forward reasons that are not cogent, so as to give occasion to unbelievers to laugh, thinking that on such grounds we believe things that are of faith.

The very first sentence is of utmost importance. He states that the knowledge that the world was created cannot be known by reason alone much like the Trinity. Philosophy cannot prove that Christianity is true. If you disagree, use nothing but reason alone and prove that God is triune and that he sent his Son to die for our sins and that the Son rose on the third day.

At the end, Aquinas also says the reason that we do know that this happened is because of revelation. Aquinas does not downplay Scripture at all. He sees it as essential to having a more than just cognitive knowledge of God. It is essential to having a salvific knowledge of God.

Now what does that mean for philosophy. Is it totally useless? Far from it. Philosophy is the handmaiden to the knowledge of God. Philosophy cannot prove the Trinity or Christianity, but once we have had those truths revealed, they can be defended by philosophy. So, Thomas AS a theologian can know that God created the world, but Thomas AS a philosopher would say, “Using reason alone, I cannot demonstrate that God created the world.” Precisely.

You would think that for those who are making a deal about man supposedly following autonomous human reason that they would want to embrace such a position. It is one that admits that man by reason alone cannot reach to a saving knowledge of God. This is not the view usually presented and when listening to them or reading them, I urge the reader to consider checking on the people that they criticize in the traditionalist camp.

Now it could be Aquinas is wrong in all that he said. However, what is important tonight is that Bahnsen is wrong in what he says about Aquinas.

The Royal Wedding And Christian Witness

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. I started blogging recently on natural theology and presuppositionalism, but before returning to that, my mind has been pondering lately what I heard about the recent royal wedding. No. I didn’t bother watching. I was out of town and sick anyway. I have heard from some people however that based on a reading of Romans 12, that this wedding was to be a witness of the impact of Christianity on our culture.

On the contrary, I think it’s a witness of the impact of secularism on our culture.

Let’s take a look at some basic facts that will show this. To begin with, the prince and the now princess lived together before they were married. This is not in line with the Christian tradition of sexuality. Not only that, the bride was pregnant before the wedding and the honeymoon is even being put on hold.

But they read Romans 12 at the wedding!

That doesn’t demonstrate the importance of Christianity. In fact, I see it as looking at Christianity as a relic of a bygone era. It’s like doing the tradition that you do simply because it is the tradition. Religion is what we do for marriages, but on the way that we live our lives as a whole, it does not make a difference. It is Stephen Jay Gould’s NOMA in some ways.

If we wanted a Christian witness, then we needed Christianity to be a part of not just the wedding, but also the dating, engagement, and the marriage itself. We in America and the West overall need to look at the way that our society is living and see if marriage is being treated as sacred. Are even Christians doing that?

Why have some looked at it so quickly as a witness. Could it be because we are lacking witness elsewhere? Now I am not against Christian films and TV shows and such, but are we often using the media to make a case for us? If we can take someone to see a movie like “The Passion of the Christ” well that will show them the importance of Christianity. No need for us to really study the Scriptures. We’ll just count on the media to do things for us. No need for us to form a witness to the world. We’ll just wait until Scripture is read in a major event televised around the world and claim that it was a witness.

I don’t doubt that some people were converted by movies like the Passion. Some of us however just weren’t impressed. I actually did not really care for it too much. For me, a movie like “Luther” was much more enjoyable. I own a copy of that film. My reason for not liking the Passion was because I did not see enough emphasis on the deity of Christ and too much stuff added in that was not Scriptural. If someone comes to Christ, great, but I hope they were discipled as well. If we count on someone to get an emotional response to a movie, TV show, song, etc., we could be setting ourselves up for failure as not all people will do that.

That Romans 12 was read is not going to have a major impact on non-Christians out there any more than hearing Christmas Carols that have religious themes will be impacting on them. I seriously doubt people the world over were talking to one another about the wedding and saying “I really loved that stuff from the Bible. I think it was Romans 12. Maybe I need to study Christianity more!”

Want a witness to the world? The best witness to the world is to BE the witness. Our jumping at any thing that we can shows not how seriously we take our faith, but rather that we fear our faith is being seen as antiquated in our modern world, and if it is, we ultimately have no one to blame but ourselves.

Presuppositionalism and Natural Theology

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. I’ve been doing some reading lately on the topic of presuppositionalism and seeing the kinds of arguments that are used by presuppositionalists. Much of the discussion centers around natural theology and before going on, I’d like to have a good blog on what exactly natural theology is.

Theology comes from the Greek and it refers to the study of God. There are two ways usually seen that God can reveal Himself. All Christians agree in special revelation. This is revelation that is specific, propositional, and is not immediately accessible by all. The two main ones are Scripture and Christ. Of course, one could say the Old Testament prophets were also giving special revelation in their time that was written down for us.

General revelation is more tricky. There are some Christians who deny it and it’s not just presuppositionalists. Karl Barth for instance denied any knowledge of God through general revelation. General revelation is non-specific, being general, it is not propositional, but it is accessible to everyone.

The main texts for a belief in general revelation in Scripture are Psalm 19:1 and Romans 1:18-21. If any of these do teach general revelation, then we can say that Scripture affirms general revelation. Note that in saying this, the claim is not being made that general revelation is salvific.

Natural theology is the study of God based on general revelation alone. What can be known about God? Note that the object of study is the same. We are using our reason to study God and the main tools we are using are philosophical in nature. When a theologian studies God in Scripture, the subject is the same, but the means of study is different.

For instance, suppose you are studying man. You could study anatomy and get an understanding of the man’s body. You could study psychology and get an understanding of the man’s mind. You could study anthropology and get an understanding of man is in the category of human beings. All of these are studying man, but they are studying man using different means and in different ways.

Natural theology for our starting purposes could contradict Scripture hypothetically. I am not at the start assuming the truth of Scripture. However, let us keep in mind that it is important to us if natural theology does in fact agree with Scripture. The claim is that it is necessary that natural theology gives us a view of God that is like that of the one found in Scripture in that it does not contradict the God of Scripture, but it is not sufficient to establish that the God of Scripture is the true God.

So what all can be known through natural theology? What does the Bible really say about it? Is it really an important tool? These are questions that I plan to address as we continue our look at apologetic methodology and seeing if the classical approach is still valid or not.

We shall continue tomorrow.

Judgment Day?!

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. Recently, my wife and I were traveling out of town and on the way there, we happened to pass by a billboard obviously put up by Harold Camping who runs Family Radio stating that Judgment Day is May 21.

There are two things at least I’m certain of.

Judgment Day will not be May 21, 2011.

Harold Camping will still have faithful followers on May 22, 2011.

For the first one, I will definitely say I could not prove that, but based on the way I approach eschatology, I just don’t see it as happening. For the second one, it has happened before as Camping has stated when the end will come before and as we can tell from a new statement, it’s been wrong before.

Yet still, people are sending in the donations and keeping this going on. Let us keep in mind that in the Old Testament, if someone had made such a claim and that claim was false, they would have been killed for it. God takes it very seriously when people claim to speak for Him and even those of us who are teachers should be cautious. While it would not be normative to claim special revelation personally on our part, we are handling the revelation God has already given of Himself and people will take how we interpret that very seriously.

Regardless of what your eschatology is, the actions of Camping should be condemned by all Christians. From preterist to futurist, everyone should disagree with this. If you’re a futurist looking forward to the rapture, you should condemn it since there is no basis for setting an exact date on when it will occur. If you’re a preterist just waiting for judgment day alone and not believing in the rapture, then you should still condemn it not because it’s a futurist idea, but because it explicitly goes against what the Bible teaches. Now of course the Bible cannot both teach and not teach the rapture, but that’s also a point Christian can disagree on. What they should agree on however is that God’s name is to be taken seriously and especially on those who claim to speak for Him.

My other concern with this event also is with the way we look to the non-Christian world. I care about it in the sense that it is people like this that will be seen as what Christianity is like on a normative basis. Of course, this is entirely unfair to us, but to an audience with itching ears, it’s what they want to hear. For instance, Sam Harris talks about a Christian group in “The Moral Landscape”, not bothering to note that this so-called Christian group is actually a cult that would be condemned by Christians. Who cares? The audience who doesn’t bother researching the material will accept it as just ordinary Christians.

What’s the response of the church then at this point? Call sin sin. If someone is out there setting dates for judgment, don’t support them. Pray for them? Sure. Support for them simply encourages this behavior to go on. It also points to a lack of biblical awareness on our part and how in a nation where Christians have no excuse for not being able to educate themselves on their faith, that so many are not doing so and are simply following someone blindly, and yes, it is blindly considering how many false predictions have been made in the past.

The church needs to do better. That someone like Camping has such a following is revealing. We are to be a light to the world, but we need to clean up our own side as well. If a group acts like one of us and goes against us, then call them out. After all, the little false teachings of today could be the major heresies for our children.

The Frightening Love of God

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. I apologize for the lack of blogs lately. My wife and I were both out of town and we both came down with something. We’re still recovering, but I’m functioning enough that I can make it out in the world to an extent.

I’ve been considering lately the topic of the love of God. Usually, we have church services and events where we talk about how good the love of God is. I agree it is good. We talk about how it brings us so much joy to know that God loves us. Indeed, it should bring us a lot of joy. However, have we ever considered the love of God as frightening?

Recently, someone asked me how to learn forgiveness best. I told them to get married. It works both ways. When the Mrs. has done something that has hurt me somehow, I am often tempted to get angry first, but then I realize that such a response would hurt her and me both. Thus, I refrain but I am firm and say that whatever it was, it should not happen again.

Meanwhile, I think I could say I’ve apologized more in the past year than I have all other years combined. Living with someone else has taught me not only what that someone else is like, but what I am like as well. Before you want to go after the other person, I find it helpful to look and find out if you’re any better. It may not be the same problem, but it could be a similar one.

My wife’s forgiveness of me is incredible to me which gets me to think about the love of God in a new way. I will know she’s offended by something that I’ve done, but within a few moments, she’s back to her sweet self and she’s more than happy to forgive me of everything. Being “let off the hook” is incredible.

It is with God also which can get us thinking “There must be a catch!” Most of us just can’t really accept the love of God. How could someone care for us that much? Indeed, any transgression we commit against our spouse is nowhere near the hideousness of what it is that we have done to God.

We like to revel in this love and consider it as such a good truth to hear, but it should be seen as something that inspires fear as well, a healthy fear that is. What does it mean that God can come to us and as I’ve told me Mrs., not wipe the slate clean but break it into a million pieces?

The next time you hear about the love of God, be joyful, but remember the holiness of Him who has forgiven you and that He has the authority to pronounce you holy as well. The love of God is good news for us, but it is also news that should shake us to our core and encourage us to be holy.