Throughout the entirety of the New Testament evangelism is imperative for all believers to practice. In order for a believer to properly share his faith with the unbelieving masses, it is crucial that he be prepared to properly articulate and defend his faith to a both skeptical and hostile crowd if he hopes to attain any progress in conversion. It is in satisfying this requirement does the practice of apologetics find its purpose. It is the author’s intention in this paper to present the nature and purpose of this indispensable element of evangelism and personal discipleship.

What is Christian Apologetics?

The word “apologetic” is derived from the Greek word apologia, which “a verbal defense, as in a legal situation”, or “to plead one’s case.” In relation to the Christian Faith, apologetics seeks to prove the validity of Christianity, while at the same time defending it from opposing ideologies. For evangelistic purposes, apologetics can remove intellectual barriers that may prevent an unbeliever from believing the gospel.

Along with several New Testament passages command believers to provide a verbal defense for the faith they profess (see 1 Pet 3:15, Jud 3, Col 4:6, etc.), Scripture also gives account of both Christ and the apostles using apologetics to persuade unbelievers toward belief (Phil. 1:7, 1 Cor. 15, Jhn 8:18, etc.). From the Biblical witness, it is evidently clear that the practice of apologetics is both Scriptural and necessary for evangelistic purposes. It is also essential to note that the commands concerning apologetics given to believers are universally binding, which means that it is every believer’s responsibility to act as an apologist for the gospel’s sake.

What can Apologetics do?

Since apologetics main task is the defense of the veracity of Christianity, there are both potential tasks it can, fulfill but certain functions it cannot perform. Apologetics can be used to refute opposing theories and ideologies, to vindicate the Christian worldview against its assailants, and defend Christianity as a system. It is also necessary to realize that apologetics can only function only as a necessary element of conversion, but not as a sufficient element.

The Biblical testimony is clear that only through Divine assistance by means of the Holy Spirit and volition participation of the unbeliever can regeneration take place. Although apologetics may bring an unbeliever to the point of witnessing the reality of the gospel, the decision to believe lies in the capacity of the unbeliever’s own volition.

Types of Apologetics

It is also worth noting that there are a variety of apologetic methodologies that are practiced. The classification and study of such methodologies leads to the branch of apologetics known as metapologetics. Within the field of metapologetics, there are a variety of apologetic systems which many have categorized into four main categories based on certain attributes intrinsic to the system.

Classical apologetics consist of arguments that have particular use of reasoning and logic. While much emphasis is placed on the deductive logic, classical apologists often synchronize such reasoning with inductive methodologies (historical evidence as an example). Classical arguments often characterized by two basic steps. First, by proving God’s existence through traditional theistic proofs, and secondly, proving the Resurrection through historical evidence.

Evidential apologetics consist of arguments using evidence to prove Christianity’s validity. Such lines of evidence include historical evidence of miracles and the Resurrection, appeals made to the fulfillment of prophecy, scientific evidence revealing the existence of God, or any other inductive system of gathering evidence.

Experiential apologetics (also known as fideist apologetics) consist of arguments dealing with subjective existential experience to validate the Christian faith. Many supporters of the method claim dogmatically that Christianity cannot be proven through evidence or rationality, but only through experiencing the doctrines of Christianity through faith can one “know” it to be the truth.

Presuppositional apologetics (also known as reformed apologetics) consist of arguments that require certain Biblical presuppositions to be true. Such presuppositions include the existence of the Triune God, the authority of the Word of God, and the sovereignty of God. Such arguments prove the truth of Christianity while taking into account certain Biblical doctrines as being necessary presuppositions.

The categorization of apologetic systems is often not encouraged by several apologists, since there are several areas of overlap between each category, thus making categorization a difficult and redundant process. It is clear that each category has its own set of strengths and advantages, but this also means each system has its own unique weaknesses as well.

It is the author’s personal opinion that there isn’t a “perfect” system, but that through combining each category into an integrative system, several faults and flaws in each method can be neutralized while certain strengths and advantages intrinsic to each system can be multiplied. Now while it is clear that each approach contains areas of overlap, the integrative purposely seeks to combine such methodologies together. This approach of combining apologetic systems into synthetic system is known as an integrative approach to apologetics. Many prominent apologists (including the one in which this group has been named after) have adapted such an approach in an attempt to formulate stronger arguments and eliminate certain faults present in the ones currently possessed.

Conclusion

While this isn’t an exhaustive piece concerning the all the details of apologetics, it serves as an introduction to both the methods and the nature of Biblical apologetics. By observing the Biblical position concerning apologetics, it is imperative that Christians be ready to defend the faith they profess to believe. It also clear that a variety of methods are at the disposal of the Christian apologist, and that apologetics is in itself a branch of Biblical wisdom that should never be neglected.

Norman Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999), 43.

This is a paper that was presented by Joshua Shirey on April 14, 2008.

Sola Scriptura

 An essay concerning the inerrancy of Scripture

By Joshua Shirey

Originally presented to the Francis A. Shafer Philosophy Society of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary on April 4^th, 2008

Introduction

In an attempt to expound on the correlation of the Protestant Reformation proposition known as “sola Scripture” or “Scripture alone” with religious beliefs in general, it became apparent that this must be done primarily outside the context of Reformation literature and dogma. When I began to research Sola Scriptura, I found there to be a lack of documentation concerning the specific origin of this proposition and the other “Cries” or “Solas” of the Reformation. As a result of this deficiency of historical analysis, the principle of “Sola Scriptura” will be analyzed in this brief essay primarily in it essential (as opposed to historical) relation to religious beliefs.

It must be noted however, that even though one is hard pressed to find a fullness of historical data concerning the proposition of “sola Scriptura” in and of itself, it is widely accepted that this proposition was central to the Protestant Reformation. For example, R. C. Sproul, in his book Scripture Alone, states that Phillip Manlanchthon, Martin Luther’s partner in the Reformation, gave “sola Scriptura” the status of the “formal cause of the Reformation.” Although the chief theological issue of the Reformation was justification, the question of authority was at the bottom of almost every controversy raised by the Reformation.[i] In addition to understanding that “sola Scriptura” preceded the Reformation in cause, it must be noted that this principal was and is at the heart of almost every Protestant confession of faith, dating all the way back to The Theses of Berne, a Reformed confession written in 1528.[ii] Near five centuries later, the Baptist Faith and Message (2000) has contained in its first article the statement that “all Scripture is totally true and trustworthy…and (is) the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and religious opinions should be tried.” [iii]

Therefore, since the origin of this proposition of “Scripture alone” is somewhat ambiguous[iv] and it nevertheless, has deep roots in all of Protestantism, the proposition of “sola Scriptura” or “Scripture alone” will be analyzed in this essay not strictly relating to any one person, work, or creed, but as the proposition itself relates to religious epistemology in general. This task will be done under the guiding statement that pure scripture is unique in that it is the only inerrant source of information, particularly concerning divine revelation.

What I mean by ‘Pure Scripture’

Three primary issues need to be addressed to understand what I mean by saying ‘Pure Scripture’. These are 1) Canonicity, 2) Original Autographs and 3) Authorial Intent. These three issues are straightforward and I hold to them unapologetically; thus, I will not waste space with a formal defense of theses ideas but will merely explain what I mean when I say them. Concerning canonicity, I hold that pure scripture is limited to the unadulterated collection of the sixty-six books of the Old and New Testaments as listed by Athanasius in his Thirty-Ninth Festal Epistle, A.D. 367.[v] The issue of canonicity is so basic and understood in Protestantism that it is hardly ever addressed, but it is important to clearly define this term when the question is asked “What is scripture?” or even more basic “What do you accept as your sacred literature?”

Concerning the original autographs, I hold that pure scripture is determined by what was contained in the original documents that were “God Breathed” when they were written (2 Tim 3:16-17). This issue is problematic because we have none of the original autographs. The oldest manuscripts we have are only pure if they agree with the originals, but since the originals have either been lost or destroyed, there is no way to be completely certain that what we have is indeed pure. The resolution to this issue is closely related to the divine inspiration of the originals. If God did indeed inspire the scriptures, superintending their composition on both the macro and micro level, it would make sense that he would also ensure that this special revelation would be passed down faithfully.

Concerning authorial intent, I hold that pure scripture is constrained by the authorial intent of both the divine author and the human author in their writhing and superintending of the original autographs. Authorial intent is that which an author intends his audience to learn through their reading or hearing of the words he uses. Pure scripture is the message that the author(s) intended the audience to know by the reading or hearing of the written word. In the scriptures, the human authorial intent and the divine authorial intent will never be in conflict but the latter may be greater in the sense of scope than the former. Where this third issue works itself out is in the debates of hermeneutics and translation. The hermeneutic and philosophy of translation of an interpreter will directly depend on the objective the interpreter holds in these two tasks. If the objective of interpretation is to discover the message intended by the author(s), the interpretation will be more pure than if the objective is otherwise.

Again, I am not offering a defense of these three issues. If anyone wishes to analyze the scriptures form the prospective of higher criticism, there are many better sources to dive into on this issue.

The “Only Inerrant” source?

Pure scripture is the only source of information that is inerrant. The next statement, namely, “concerning divine revelation”, is extremely important in clarifying and qualifying this preceding statement. However, for this section, the issue at hand is not the extent or implication of the inerrancy of the scriptures but the exclusive nature of this category of inerrant sources of information. I hold that pure scripture is the only source of information that is inerrant. This means that other documents, creeds, narratives, philosophies, &c, where they relate to message of the scriptures may be trusted only so far as they align with that message of the scriptures.

Concerning Divine revelation

This section must be addressed now to avoid any confusion through a convolution of the issue. As I said above, this section is very important in fully understanding the meaning of the proceeding statement. After I have addressed this topic briefly I will move to address both of these topics together and show how they relate.

My thesis states, “Pure scripture is the only inerrant source of information concerning divine revelation.” The reason why the last phrase is so important is the fact that there are other souses of information which are in some sense inerrant; for example, mathematics. Nevertheless, there is no source of information other than the scriptures, about God or what he has said, that is inerrant. The purpose of the Bible is to reveal God to man; it is God’s self-disclosure of himself to humanity, particularly in the person of Jesus Christ. More simply put, the Scriptures are from God and about God; the scriptures are unique in this way, in that they are divine revelation (they have God as there source) and their purpose is to reveal God to man. Other sources of information may have one of these attributes but only scripture has both of them, at least for this age of the Church.[vi]

It may already be clear from what has been said why this idea, namely that the scriptures are the only inerrant source of information about God, was beneath almost every controversy in the Protestant Reformation and is still hotly debated today. In the tradition of the Reformers, I unapologetically hold that pure scripture is the only source which humans, and in particular, Christians, may go to gain true knowledge concerning matters of faith and practice. Information concerning these matters that does not have scripture as its source must have scripture as its validation, otherwise humanity may neither hold it to be true nor use it as a guide in conduct. 

In the time of the Reformation, the authority in question was that of the pope and church councils. Luther did not say that these authorities were worthless (this was known as “solo Scriptura”) but rather that scripture was the means by which the believer must determine whether the pope or the councils were trustworthy. At the Leipzig debate in late June of 1519, Luther declared that, “a simple layman armed with the Scriptures is to be believed above a pope or a council without it.”[vii] Again, Luther’s point of contention is not that the pope or church councils should not be trusted at all, but rather that they should not be trusted as infallible or inerrant.

Today, because of the continuing effects of the enlightenment, the scientific revolution, the postmodernist movement, and many other intellectual reformations, the question of authority does not concern the papacy or a particular church council, but rather authority in itself. In the current prevailing mindset of western culture, authority has made a complete shift from divine revelation to things such as science, personal opinion, or cultural norms. Being in the wake of all these other alternatives, and in the midst of millions of people who are (possibly unknowingly) part of these schools of thought, Christians must stand firm on the foundation of pure scripture as the only trustworthy source of information concerning the things of God. Other sources of information regarding math, science, biology, physics, history, philosophy, &c may be trusted but wherever these categories cross over into the realm of faith and practice, which they inevitably will, scripture alone must be the supreme guiding principal.

Conclusion

I would like to conclude my argument with an admonition. If it is true that pure scripture is unique in that it is the only inerrant source of information, particularly concerning divine revelation it would logically follow that scripture deserves our utmost diligence in the study and application thereof. Christians can believe that scripture is the infallible word of God, but if this belief does not work itself out in matters of faith and practice in their lives, then they are no better that the pagans. In addition, if the scriptures are the only infallible source of knowledge about God, then it would also logically follow that Christians should dedicate themselves to the scriptures in a manner that puts them (the scriptures) highest in the hierarchy of authority in their (the Christian’s) minds. Otherwise, Christians will use other authorities to inform their understanding of scripture instead of using scripture to inform their understanding of these other authorities. If the Bible is the infallible Word of God, all of humanity, and especially Christians, are obligated to treat it as such. 

This is a paper by Keith Starks. It is currently unfinished so this essay will be updated when he has made all needed changes.

Philosophy/Theology Argument

            For anyone who has taken the time to understand this issue realizes it is not an easy task. To answer questions like: if philosophy and theology deal with some of the same concepts, why are they considered two different concepts? Have they ever been considered as one? If so, when and why did they split? There are different views and way to many explanations made to be fully explained. Although an attempt will be made by looking at histories events and ideas to see how they affect today.

            “What has Jerusalem to do with Athens, the church with Plato’s Academy, the Christian with the heretic?” Tertullian asked this question many years ago when Greco-Roman learning began to infiltrated most societies. There were some who urged the abandoning of Greco-Roman learning among the Christians because they felt such knowledge would corrupt the morality of the young and would lead Christians to doubt Scripture. Tertullian, in his book Prescriptions Against Heretics, argues that it is philosophy that supplies the heresies. He uses Colossians 2:8, “be careful that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deceit based on human tradition, based on the elemental forces of the world and not based on Christ,” to support his argument. He also argues that, once we come to believe in Christ we have no desire to believe in anything else. Clement of Alexandria responded to this in his book, In Defense of Greek Learning. Clement argues that philosophy is a clear meaning of truth and how a person is truly learned when they are able to take what is useful (geometry, music, grammar, philosophy, etc.) and guard the faith. Saint Augustine also responded saying “believing all the branches of the pagan learning contain not only false and superstitious fantasies and burdensome studies that involve unnecessary effort, which each one of us must loathe and avoid as under Christ’s guidance we abandon the company of pagans, but also studies for liberated minds which are more appropriate to the service of the truth.” Greek learning eventually won out the day.

            There must be some mentioning of the distinction between the pre-modern and modern eras. In the pre-modern era, from recorded history to about the 1600’s, it could be agreed upon that metaphysics is the first philosophy. There are three, if I may, “categories” within metaphysics during this time: theology, cosmology and ontology. Theology saying that God exists and that everything else is contingent upon him and that the supernatural exists and does not conflict with science. Cosmology held that God is the first cause and the creator of everything. Epistemology came after metaphysics and it consisted of five “categories”: correspondence theory of truth, epistemological realism, community, hermeneutic of trust and teleological. Within the idea of the community the church viewed corporately shared beliefs to be important. The hermeneutic of trust says the content of the bible is inerrant, sufficient and authoritative. Most importantly the teleological held the idea that epistemology is dependent upon metaphysics. In some sense we can see that there is really no distinction between the two. In the modern age (1600-1950) things took a dramatic shift. Epistemology becomes the first philosophy and is no longer dependent upon metaphysics. Theology is separated from metaphysics, God’s existence is in doubt, science explains everything in the world, the individual comes before the community as a legitimate source of knowledge, the supernatural is rejected, science and reason are trusted over the Bible and people begin to hold to nominalism. Nominalism is the idea that universals no longer exist, only concrete particulars. How could have things taken such a turn like this? Who or what caused this?

            When asking somebody who, what or why about the separation of philosophy and theology many different answers will be given. Since there are so many different answers I will argue for two people and the idea of community to individual shift. One person that we cannot avoid to look at on the issue of philosophy/theology separation is Aquinas. What Aquinas did was separate what is usually called “nature and grace” on different levels. Grace on the higher (God the Creator; heaven and heavenly things; the unseen and its influence on the earth; mans soul; unity) and nature on the lower (the created; earth and earthly things; the visible and what nature and man do on earth; man’s body; diversity). Philosophy pertains to the realm in which natural reason operates and theology pertains to the realm where grace operates. In addition, Aquinas had an “incomplete view of the Fall,” says Schaeffer (which I have chosen to use much of his ideas dealing with Aquinas). Aquinas believed the will had fallen but the intellect was not affected. Through this, man’s intellect was seen as autonomous. According to Schaeffer this resulted in the development of natural theology. Natural theology is a theology that could be pursued independently from the Scriptures. “Aquinas had opened the way to an autonomous humanism, an autonomous philosophy; and once the movement gained momentum, there was soon a flood.” He did have a desire for unity though. Previous to his time there was not much emphasis on nature or the here and now. I think he wanted people to see nature as something good since God created it. I say this so that it won’t seem as if nothing good came from Aquinas. To move to my second point I will explain the community to individual shift in short. In the pre-modern era there was a sense of trust that people put in the church. If ideas were in conflict, they were able to be discussed at councils. In the modern era questions are brought forth to the church that could not be answered and that they do not want to deal with. For example, Galileo’s verification of Copernicus’s view of the universe: that the earth revolves around the sun. The church held to the view that the earth was the center of the universe. In Judges 10:13 it mentions how the sun stood still and the moon stopped. Galileo’s trail was significant to the church’s relationship to science. Philosophy is now becoming even more independent than before. William Ockham played a major part in the philosophy/theology separation. He is given credit for setting the stage for modern philosophy. To him universals are the worst mistake in the history of philosophy. “Universals are no more than concepts or words and have no reality outside the mind.” Basically raising the question, since we cannot experience them, why have them? He rejected Plato and Aristotle’s concept of universals and how Christians “modified” them to fit their worldview.

            It would not be fair to stop there on the philosophy/theology separation. David Hume came along and introduced what people call Hume’s fork, which holds that “truth must be empirically verified or based on reason. Anything not in line with these ideas must be consigned to the flames. Consequently it does not make sense to speak about God or religious truth.” Hume believed true knowledge could be found only in mathematics and experimental disciplines. Hume says, “If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.” Hume’s fork was the foundation for the verification principle. Not only were theologians cut out of philosophical discussions, but ethicists were to. In addition, to this Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889-1951) ushers in a new idea of community. Holding that, religious language makes sense in light of the religious community. So discussion about God is sensible within a religious circle because it is within these “communities” that meaning is determined.

            What is to be said of all this? Can philosophy and theology work together or should they be completely separate? I would argue that they can better help each other. But to do them separately or come to them with a different mind, as some say is necessary, seems impossible. Since theology is the systematic study of God and his divinity and philosophy defined by the Greeks is the love of knowledge or wisdom and Proverbs 1:7 tells us that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, aren’t they compatible? We must admit though that since the move of a “pure” or first philosophy, the two have become very different in content. Theology deals more specifically with the Saviour, salvation, the kingdom of God and much more, while on the other hand philosophy has come to deal with abstract ideas. Likewise they are separated by their sources. The source of theology is divine revelation. Philosophy is rational and abstract. It proceeds not from faith, like theology, but seeks to base itself either on the indisputable fundamental axioms of reason, deducing from them further conclusions, or upon the facts of science or general human knowledge. Philosophy itself concludes that human thought by its nature is limited to boundaries. Without faith these boundaries cannot be crossed.

This is cross-posted from my own website. I am posting this here to promote discussion over members – though the essay does have some grammatical errors, I want people to focus in on if it is factually correct. If you think so, please state why. If you think it has possible logical or factual errors, please point them out and make your case.  

When Pilate uttered the question, “Quid est veritas” he asked a question that many have attempted to answer, three of which – Descartes, Pascal, and Reformed Epistemologists – have given answers that have shaped modern thought. From the time of Emperor Constantine’s establishment of a sacral system to the beginning of the Enlightenment, epistemology was almost taken for granted. For the philosopher, one merely relied upon tradition, scripture, and papal decrees to know what was true about the universe; the layman merely accept what the scholastic philosopher or bishop said. After the Reformation, it was savvy to question the established way of thinking. On this scene came Descartes, the father of modern philosophy, who taught the philosopher to question everything and doubt all preconceived notions. He elevated man’s reasoning in the hopes of finding a unified system to discover truth. In response to Descartes was Pascal’s approach of recognizing the fallen nature of reason without quantification to its importance. In between the two is Reformed Epistemology, teaching that man is both significant, reasonable, and capable of knowing truth, while paradoxically insignificant, unreasonable, and incapable of living truth. Thus, Pilate’s question, “Quid est veritas,” is one that has been asked for quite some time.

Descartes’ Unified Epistemology and How Man Can Know Truth

Descartes taught that no one could claim to know truth without first doubting one’s presuppositions and approaches to truth – that is, before one can come up with a method to knowing truth, one must first deconstruct one’s worldview and rebuild it from the ground up.[1] Descartes believed that all knowledge of truth was gained a posteriori and subsequently could be faulty. He observed that people who lived differently from him were not necessarily savages, but that, “…many of them use their reason either as much as or even more than we do…Thus our own convictions result from custom and example very much more than from any knowledge that is certain.[2]” Descartes believed in deconstructing his knowledge primarily because he felt culture influenced one’s epistemology and understanding of truth. Man did not know things because there was an innate sense of truth within him – which had been the epistemological stance via Platonism – but instead, man understood “truth” through his own experiences, and often these understandings of “truth” were more cultural than rational. Therefore, for a person to know truth, according to Descartes, he would have to eliminate all that he had learned in order to rebuild a true system.

Removing everything, however, could prove a problem for any knowledge, as certain presuppositions are needed. Descartes answered this problem by stating mathematics and natural science (physics) were the two criteria that could be left unquestioned. In fact, as Tom Sorell has stated, Descartes taught that for a philosopher to begin any system for understanding truth, he would have to begin with mathematics and physics[3]. For Descartes, the only unquestionable absolutes in the world that simply could not be deconstructed came from mathematics and physics. He did not, however, allow for this to lead into any form of complexity. Descartes wholly accepted Ockham’s Razor and attempted to make all systems of epistemology simple – in this belief, he taught that the natural order of things (physics) was the simplest way to know “absolute truth.”[4]

By stating that absolutes can be summed up in mathematics and physics, Descartes essentially made sense integration and use of the five senses as the only epistemological test for truth claims. If one culture states that cupcakes are healthy, but a different culture believes cupcakes are unhealthy, a person need not use speculative reasoning to discover an answer. According to Descartes model, one would merely need to observe and test the healthiness of the cupcake to determine which culture was correct. If there is no evidence either way and only speculative reasoning can be applied – that is, reasoning without physical or mathematical evidence – then neither culture can really claim truth, but can only embrace their opinion.

Believing in a simple approach to epistemology, Descartes ultimately had no choice except to support a split between reason and faith, eventually paving the way for Deism. As a believer in Ockham’s Razor, Descartes had to accept the simplest yet most absolute explanation for any situation. In Descartes system this was accomplished by mathematics, physics, and the deconstruction of a posteriori knowledge. Though Descartes argued his system could still prove God existed, this belief would still have to be very minimalistic. When applied to religion, the only thing that can be known about God must come through verifiable evidence – all things must have a beginning, we can verify that all things have a beginning, thus nothing can truly be eternal, thus all things must have a creator, and thus God exists. Though this provides grounds for theism, it does not explain if God is a jealous God, a loving God, a God of justice, and so on. The attributes of God simply do not fall into Descartes’ epistemological method for truth, thus they cannot properly be applied. Though Descartes was attempting to provide a new outlook to epistemology and strengthen the weakened religious view of the seventeenth century, he aided in the split between faith and reason.

As Francis Schaeffer has pointed out, modern (Enlightenment) epistemology led to an “upper story” and a “lower story” in thinking[5]. The upper story is characterized as being the way people live, but with no absolutes. The upper story is a non-absolute area where judgments are based on tastes and personal experiences, not on objective and propositional truth claims that are to dictate life. The lower story is full of absolutes – that which can be proven via Descartes’ reasoning with mathematics and physics – but is often cold and contradictory to the experience of life. Descartes unwittingly placed faith in the upper story while placing nature in the lower story. Nature, in Descartes’ world, replaced God as an absolute. Though Descartes argued that God could be proven from nature, this still made God contingent upon nature and the knowledge of God very basic; most of the faith was still placed in the upper story. Ultimately, because of the divide, faith could not be considered reasonable.

One of the major consequences of Descartes’ philosophy is that it gave an unhealthy elevation to man’s ability to reason. Descartes gave the philosophical world the famous phrase cognito ergo sum (I think, therefore I am). By stating this, Descartes elevated human reasoning to a position of almost infallibility – man’s ability to think was the starting point for belief in man’s existence. The problem in elevating the intellect is that it opened the door for worshiping the mind, or intellectualism. Man’s rationality is so much like God’s that many extremists, such as Spinoza, claim that God is actually participating in every thought[6]. Though Descartes would have a problem with such a mentality, he would not be able to honestly argue against such thinking, as he elevated the human intellect to the point of quasi-infallibility. Descartes’ view ignores the mind’s inability to grasp certain truths and elevates it beyond a justifiable point in a post-Fall world; reasoning was viewed as almost untouched by the Fall.

The second problem with Descartes’ epistemological view in understanding truth is his willingness to deconstruct prior beliefs. Unfortunately, by allowing people to question everything, Descartes opens Pandora’s Box. Who is to say that Descartes did not take the concept of “de omnibus dubitandum” far enough? What if Nietzsche is correct that most philosophers do not go far enough in their doubt[7]? In fact, Nietzsche is correct – if Descartes’ epistemological method is to be accepted – in that doubting is not taken far enough. In the modern (chronologically) day, Derrida has taken Descartes’ system of doubt and applied it to everything. As John Caputo has observed, “For Derrida, philosophical questioning, proceeding from the basis of a technical specialty, tends to shade off into the larger space of a general deconstructive thinking which, taken in its broadest sense, means the unfettered freedom to think, the right to ask any question.[8]” Though this seems innocent, when applied to deconstruction, one is no longer allowed to answer with a positive response. Thus, though the question, “Does God love us?” is a legitimate question, under the intellectually honest conclusions of Descartes’ epistemology, one cannot answer the question with “yes,” but can merely say, “God does not hate.” Under such questioning, one can only say what is not (negation) and not what is (positivism). By opening everything to question, and forbidding presuppositions, Descartes merely left people with the ability to question, but not to answer.

The Response of Blaise Pascal

Pascal, a contemporary of Descartes, took the opposite view of Descartes and chose to limit the human will and ability to reason. While Descartes relied upon a solid human capacity to reason, Pascal believed there was no reason to elevate man’s capacity to reason as man was fallen and therefore incapable of a unified system of thought[9]. In man’s fallibility, truth was elusive and difficult to grasp. In fact, man’s ability to recognize truth was in a form of limbo for Pascal, as Albert Wells states, “The human mind is incapable either of certain knowledge or of absolute ignorance. The mind too is in this median position, unable to penetrate it by its own power beyond the ‘appearance of the middle of things.’ We search for stability and find to impossible to obtain[10].” Though under this view faith did not contradict reason, it hardly complimented it either[11]. The mind, therefore, was fallen and though it could grasp some concepts of truth, it could not overcome its fallen nature[12].

Ultimately, Pascal developed two different views of truth – one was truth that came from God and was unknown to man and the other was how man understood truth[13]. The first view is truth as God understands it, in all comprehensiveness, as that truth flows from Him. This truth can only be glimpsed at by man, but cannot be understood. The second type is how man understands truth. In this, the Fall ruins man’s ability to see and understand truth, thus he takes small portions and attempts to make an absolute out of an unknown. Pascal does, however, teach that man can seek after the first truth, but he will only find it partially[14].

Truth, for Pascal, was something that could not ultimately be reduced to propositions or a unified form of thought. While Descartes attempted to establish a method for understanding truth (as previously discussed), Pascal believed that truth was something passionately sought after with no method[15]. The only way to find truth is to love it – without this love there can be no recognition[16]. This speaks directly against Descartes’ system of epistemology. While Descartes taught the importance of mathematics and physics in discovering truth, Pascal was teaching that truth flowed from God and was confirmed in the believer’s experience of that truth. Only those that loved truth and truly sought after it could possibly find it – it was not available to philosophers that wanted to play games, but instead was available to paupers and princes, anyone who loved truth and was willing to seek after it. It was not a proposition to be discovered, but a lover to be found.

The inherent problem with Pascal is there is no quantification to what man can and cannot know. Though his ideas are highly romanticized and do counteract Descartes’ over emphasis on reason, he fails to describe how much the Fall affected man’s status in knowing truth and, more importantly, how truth is imparted onto man in the modern day. Pascal seems to say that when reason ends, faith begins, but this begs the question of where such a transition occurs. Does faith begin when one believes there is a God, or does it begin when one believes he holds the capacity to reason? Descartes was at least strong on what could and could not be known; Pascal offers no such luxury.

The bigger problem is that Pascal still accepts Descartes’ presupposition that reasoning is a tool of man. Pascal puts a limited ability on man’s ability to reason toward the truth because, ultimately, he views reasoning as something men do, not something imparted onto men by God. This is where Descartes began his beliefs and why he believed in a need to question everything brought to him, this is also why Pascal must accept some form of a leap of faith and must devalue reason – reason is placed below Revelation because reasoning is viewed as secular while Revelation is viewed as supernatural. Reasoning is manmade while Revelation is God given.

The Reformed Solution

There is one view that began during the Reformation, but has been revived and popularized in the modern day which can possibly solve the problems raised by Pascal and Descartes. Reformed epistemology teaches that knowledge and the ability to reason toward truth is an innate concept placed within man by God. While Descartes taught that man’s reasoning would ultimately lead to an understanding of absolutes and Pascal taught man’s reasoning was fallen, Reformed epistemology teaches that, though fallen, man’s ability to reason is not totally lost and can lead to an understanding of truth.

Alvin Plantinga, the modern day proponent of Reformed epistemology, has stated that the cornerstone for such thinking is that the belief in God is basic in all humans, which drives the way they view the world[17]. Since all men are created in the image of God, and since all men have an innate desire to know God, it can therefore be concluded that God placed a way to know Him (truth) within all men. Reasoning, under Reformed epistemology, no longer becomes a tool used and invented by man, but instead becomes a tool that God uses to help man communicate with Him that man sometimes fails to use properly. Views that deny the one true God are not rational, but are ultimately irrational. The more rational a person is, in Reformed Epistemology, the closer to God he is[18]. Since man has the innate desire to know God, man has the innate ability to reason.

Reformed epistemology accepts two types of knowledge, much as Pascal did, but with certain reservations: the natural and the supernatural. As Brian Follis writes, “Calvin speaks of a double knowledge: the ‘simple and primitive knowledge to which the mere course of nature would have conducted us, had Adam stood upright’ and the saving knowledge revealed through Scripture that focuses upon the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ who paid the penalty due to us, by which ‘salvation was obtained for us by his righteousness’[19].” According to Calvin, the natural view is what man was to be guided by from the beginning, but this view was tarnished by the Fall. God must then reveal Himself in creation in order to enlighten man to the natural view that was apparent from the beginning. Therefore, man can know the physical world through the natural sciences, but he can also understand the supernatural world through his ability to reason and also to interpret the signs within the natural universe.

Some would object and say that Calvin believed in the total depravity of man and was thus incapable of supporting any form of rationality, but this objection is wrong. Though Calvin taught that man was fallen, he taught that only in a spiritual sense – his relationship to God – was man totally fallen; man’s ability to reason was damaged, but still remained intact and useful[20]. Though Pascal taught man’s reasoning was fallen, Calvin taught man’s ability to understand true reasoning was damaged, but still useful, even to the point of salvation[21]. Man was, therefore, not only able to know truth, but has truth instilled in him from his birth. Calvin taught that man’s understanding of this truth would be incomplete, but it would still exist.

Finally, Reformed epistemology teaches a concept that both Descartes and Pascal missed – all truth, knowledge, and reasoning extends from God and not from within man. Descartes taught that man could know truth under his own power and Pascal taught man could only look at truth blindly. Reformed epistemology teaches that all truth comes from God and is naturally revealed within man due to God’s grace[22]. Reformed epistemologists tend to take John 14:6 quite seriously in teaching that all truth comes from Christ, thus truth can be known experientially and propositionally. Most importantly, however, is that subjectivity within truth is eliminated within Reformed epistemology. Descartes taught that man could only know things absolutely that could be defined physically or mathematically. Reformed epistemology teaches that man can know anything through his ability to reason, which was given to him by God. Pascal taught that man could not reason properly due to the Fall, thus what might be sinful to one person could be permissible to another. Reformed epistemology teaches that there is a way to know what a sin (an offense to God) is and what is merely unwise for a person (a non-sin). Overall, reformed epistemology acknowledges that God is sovereign over all things, including truth, and placed this truth within man.

Conclusion

One should ultimately conclude and side with the Reformed epistemologist when discussing Pascal and Descartes. Descartes system eliminates any attempt at knowing God in a personal manner, or at least knowing Him propositionally. Pascal, alternatively, teaches an experiential view of truth that can, unfortunately, often be more subjective than Pascal probably attempted. The solution is the Reformed epistemology, which teaches there is a natural knowledge that aids in knowing truth, but this was placed on man by God. God created man, a rational creature – it only makes sense that even after the fall, God would allow man to be rational and know truth. After all, as the Gospel of John states Jesus is the truth – if the truth cannot be known or is obscure, then one must conclude that Jesus cannot be known and is likewise obscure. Only the Reformed viewpoint can avoid this and allow the believer to know the truth propositionally and experientially.

[1] Descartes, Renè, Discourse on Method and Related Writings, trans. Desmond Clarke (London: Penguin, 1999), 13.

[2] Ibid. 14-15

[3] Tom Sorell, Descartes (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987), 16.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Schaeffer, Francis, The Francis A. Schaeffer Trilology: The Three Essential Books in One Volume, ed. Francis Schaeffer, Escape from Reason (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1968), 234.

[6] Benedict de Spinoza, The Philosophy of the Body: Rejections of Cartesian Dualism, ed. Stuart F. Spicker (Chicago: Stuart F. Spicker, 1970), 28.

[7] Nietzsche, Friedrich, Beyond Good and Evil, trans. Marion Faber (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998), 6.

[8] John Caputo, Deconstruction in a Nutshell: A Conversation with Jacques Derrida (New York: Fordham University Press, 1997), 56.

[9] Albert Wells, Pascal’s Recovery of Man’s Wholeness (Richmond: John Knox Press, 1965), 51.

[10] Ibid. 86

[11] Pascal, Blaise, Christianity for Modern Pagans: Pascal’s Pensées Edited, Outlined, and Explained, ed. Peter Kreeft (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1993), 23.

[12] Ibid. 98

[13] Nicholas Hammond, Playing with Truth: Language and the Human Condition in Pascal’s Pensées (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994), 209.

[14] Kreeft, Christianity For Modern Pagans, 210

[15] Ibid. 212

[16] Ibid. 216

[17] J.P. and Craig Moreland, William Lane, Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2003), 162.

[18] This is not based on intellectualism or rationalism as the term is much different than in those two beliefs. Instead, what is being implied is that true rationality comes from God and is not from man. Thus, any claim that is made outside of what God has revealed is ultimately irrational, no matter how rational man might make it attempt to appear.

[19] Brian Follis, Truth With Love: Apologetics of Francis Schaeffer (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2006), 22.

[20] Ibid. 20

[21] Calvin did not teach that one could rationalize oneself to salvation – this would have gone against his soteriological viewpoint. He did teach, however, that God can use the mind in order to break down presuppositions and bring a person to truth.

[22] Edward J. Carnell, An Introduction to Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids: WMB. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1948), 56.

Not all comments will show up immediately. Some comments may need approval from an administrator. Please be patient if your comment does not appear.

]]> http://schaeffersociety.wordpress.com/2008/03/17/descartes-pascal-and-reformed-epistemology-re-evaluating-epistemology/feed/ 0 Joel http://schaeffersociety.wordpress.com/2008/03/10/purpose-of-philosophy/ http://schaeffersociety.wordpress.com/2008/03/10/purpose-of-philosophy/#comments Mon, 10 Mar 2008 18:56:33 +0000 Joel http://schaeffersociety.wordpress.com/?p=3 ]]>

I)              The problem of philosophy

a.     Can lead to anti-Christian beliefs

                                        i.     Colossians 2:8

                                      ii.     Do not be deceived by worldly philosophies

b.     Synthesis can lead to heretical or dead beliefs

                                        i.     Heresies within the church caused by synthesis

1.     Gnostics attempted to synthesize Platonic thought with Christianity

2.     Neo-Orthodoxy attempted to synthesize Existentialism and Romanticism with Christianity

c.      Can supplant living spirituality

                                        i.     The philosophy can be true, but lack in any form of love

                                      ii.     It becomes cold and metallic – though solid, it offers no warmth to a cold world

II)            The benefit of philosophy

a.     Brings us closer to knowledge, which aids in our spiritual growth

                                        i.     By discovering life around us, we learn how the world operates

                                      ii.     Knowledge comes with good judgments (Psalm 119:66)

                                     iii.     Hatred of knowledge causes us to lose fear of the Lord (Proverbs 1:29)

                                     iv.     Knowledge is a thing of wise men (Proverbs 10:14)

                                      v.     The list simply goes on – knowledge is a thing to be pursued for righteousness and good living

b.     Aids in apologetics

                                        i.     We are to know our enemy’s methods, this is the work of a good tactician

                                      ii.     1 Peter 3:15 says we are to defend the Word

1.     “Defend” is apologia which is a legal term used to present convincing evidence, specifically for the defendant’s innocence

2.     “Word” is logos which can refer to a rational statement(s)

                                     iii.     Philippians 1:7, 16 has Paul stating that he is a defender of the Gospel

1.     In order to “defend” something, he had to be actively involved in debating opponents to the Gospel

2.     Vs. 16 shows that he was pro-active in his defense – he went out to the people instead of letting the debate take place in the Church

                                     iv.     Titus 1:9 says that a leader in the Church should be able to refute arguments against the Gospel

III)          Counter-arguments (taken from J.P. Moreland’s book Love Your God with All Your Mind.

a.     1 Corinthians 2:14-15 speaks of the foolishness of God

                                        i.     God has transcended the wisdom of man, therefore His followers should follow suit

                                      ii.     We are to be spiritual in our knowledge, not carnal

                                     iii.     Response:

1.     The Greek word used for “understand” is ginosko, which can carry an experiential knowledge with it – thus, natural man has not experienced the truth of God and therefore thinks it foolish

2.     Paul is really using a play on words – he’s showing that man’s wisdom (that is, wisdom apart from God) isn’t wisdom at all. Previous passages from Proverbs have already shown that losing fear in the Lord begins with a rejection of true knowledge and wisdom.

b.     John 14:26 says that a helper (Holy Spirit) will come and teach us all things

                                        i.     This shows that the Holy Spirit teaches us and brings to light all things

                                      ii.     It is true, direct illumination from the Spirit – we have no need of reasoning

                                     iii.     Response:

1.     The context shows that this is solely in reference to the disciples so that they might remember the words of Christ

2.     If this were the case – that the Spirit would teach us all things – then there would be no need for the Bible; the Spirit would tell us

c.      1 John 2:27 says we will have no need for any teacher, that the Spirit will teach us all things

                                        i.     The Spirit will teach us all Spiritual truths, He is our teacher

                                      ii.     Any attempt to teach a rational faith, or use philosophy, is an attempt to supplant the Holy Spirit

                                     iii.     Response:

1.     If we don’t need a teacher, then why is John being a teacher?

2.     Why is there a spiritual gift of teaching?

3.     John was referring to the proto-Gnostics who taught there was a need of a teacher to lead a pupil into special knowledge. Believers, therefore, have no need for additional knowledge from some special teacher.

4.     The context (warning against false teachers leading people astray) fits with this explanation

IV)          Conclusion

a.     Philosophy is extremely beneficial for spiritual growth, especially in growing in fear of the Lord

b.     Philosophy is an aid in breaking down intellectual barriers to conversion – it works within Apologetics (along with evidence) as pre-evangelism

c.      Christians should be careful about synthesizing – this is where the value of Sola Scriptura comes in