Science and Theological Method: Some Thoughts

Scientism, the belief that science provides the epistemological framework upon which reality can be known, enjoyed its heyday in the first part of the Twentieth Century,[1] until roughly the early 1960’s when it started to come under increasing scrutiny. During that time it was widely believed within academia that “science was the answer.” The very word “scientist” was enough to make people expect “the facts.” Science in this atmosphere did not need to give theology a second thought. Science, indeed, especially since Darwin, had gleefully pushed theology and religion off the intellectual map. Together with some creative rewriting of history (e.g. the Galileo affair[2]; the Scopes trial) the scientist (a name coined only in 1834[3]), had become mankind’s savior.

 

Certainly, scientism has not gone away. It is still promoted in numerous textbooks and TV specials as the voice of calm reason. It still has its superstars: the late Carl Sagan, who famously began his book (and TV series) Cosmos with the words, “The cosmos is all that is, or was, or ever shall be.”[4] The late Stephen Jay Gould, whose NOMA attempted forever to separate the realm of facts (occupied, of course, by science), and the realm of private spiritual metaphor (occupied by theology and religion).[5] And, of course, Richard Dawkins, author of The Blind Watchmaker and The God Delusion, who calls religion “a virus of the mind,”[6] and the source of such one-liners as, “Nothing in the mind exists except as neural activity.”[7] Their creed is summed up accurately by Phillip Johnson:

 

Science may not be able to answer all questions, at least for the time being, but some of the most visionary scientists already speak of a “theory of everything,” or “final theory,” which will in principle explain all of nature and hence all of reality. Because (in this view) science is by far the most reliable source of knowledge, whatever is in principle closed to scientific investigation is effectively unreal.[8]

Faith and Reason in Christian Perspective - Pt. 2

A Case Study: Harold Netland and the Demand for Neutrality

 

As we further consider whether reason should be categorized separately to faith as properly functioning independent of it, I cite the example of an article by Harold Netland entitled, “Apologetics, Worldviews, and the Problem of Neutral Criteria.”[1] In Netland’s 1991 article we see an able but, I believe, misguided critique of presuppositionalist John M. Frame’s epistemology as set forth in his book The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God. The overall burden of Netland’s complaint is clear, there must be some mutually shared neutral criteria that all people, whether Theist, Atheist, Hindu, Buddhist, Humanist, or whatever, can use to judge each other’s positions.[2] It is the possibility of this neutral ground that Frame, in common with other biblical presuppositionalists (including the present writer) denies.

Faith and Reason in Christian Perspective - Pt. 1

It appears to me that one of the first things a faithful theologian needs to do is to straighten out the confusion about brought about by the world’s separation of faith and reason. This relationship is so vital to a biblically fastened worldview that to neglect it will involve the believer in a host of conflicting beliefs and practices. For it is just here that the negligent Christian theologue will be attacked.[1] To the average man in the street, “faith” is that “I really hope so” attitude that many people employ when their circumstances get tough. It is that blind trust that things will turn out all right in the end. Faith thus defined is the opposite of reason. “Reason” deals with the cold hard facts, so it goes, and is what we have to use in the “real world” – in business, in science, in education.

 

One Christian writer has put the matter in the form of a question: “Is it rational for us to believe in God? Is it rational for us to place our confidence in Him and his revelation to man? Can a person believe in God without performing a sacrifice of his intellect? ”[2]

 

According to many people, faith and reason are polar opposites. Faith deals with hopes and aspirations and dreams and ‘religious stuff’, while reason concerns itself with the facts of day to day experience, the world in which we live and do science learn about what is and what is not so. As the late Harvard paleontologist, Stephen Jay Gould stated it, in what has become a mantra among secular scientists, “religion tells us how to go to heaven; science tells us how the heavens go.” To put it in less deceptive terms, “religion deals with gods and heaven and pixies and UFO’s; while science (which knows these things are non-existent) concerns itself with what is so.” Gould even thought up a nice anagram for his concept: NOMA, or “non over-lapping magisteriums”.[3] Secular science gets all the facts; faith gets all the pink elephants. Or as one astute critic observed,

 

The power to define “factual reality” is the power to govern the mind, and thus to confine “religion” within a naturalistic box. For example, a supposed command of God can hardly provide a basis for morality unless God really exists. The commands of an imaginary deity are merely human commands dressed up as divine law…[N]aturalistic metaphysics relegates both morality and God to the realm outside of scientific knowledge, where only subjective belief is to be found.[4]

 

It is because of misconceptions such as these that the matter deserves more attention than it gets. We must begin by defining our terms. Gould and his followers are so impressed by their formulation of the issue because they have defined faith away while reconstituting reason so that it mirrors their own opinion of themselves and what they think they are doing. The first thing that any person should do, therefore, is to know what he means when employing specific terminology.

I will define reason along with theologian-philosopher John Frame as, “the human ability or capacity for forming judgments and inferences.”[5] This is employing the word in a descriptive sense. Frame goes on to narrow the definition down to a normative sense “to denote correct judgments and inferences.”[6] The important thing to notice about Frame’s definition is that it houses no built-in biases against supernaturalism. While being itself a perfectly good description it does not contain anything in it with which the secularist can control the debate.

The Divine Logos - Pt. 3

D. Jesus as the Word

Even though the teaching of the “Word” or “Logos” appears prominently and explicitly in the prologue to John’s Gospel, the theme runs through the whole of the Gospel.[1]

John stresses the words of Jesus as having special significance as words:

Rhemata is used nine times for His words (5:47; 6:63, 68; 8:20;10:21; 12:47, 48; 14:10; 15:7), and three times for the words of God spoken by Jesus (3:34; 8:47; 17:8).

John employs logos three times in the plural for Jesus words (7:40; 10:19; 14:24).

But it is used eighteen times in the singular (2;22; 4:41, 50; 5:24; 6:60; 7:36; 8:31, 37, 43, 51,52; 12:48; 14:23; 15:3, 20; 18:9, 32). Six times for God’s word and twice for the word of God which Jesus speaks (14:24; 17:14).

According to Gundry[2], John goes out of his way to “multiply references to Jesus” words qua words”, using more than twice as many of these terms as all the synoptics put together (nearly three times if one considers that many of the synoptic instances are repetitions). To these words one should also consider the usage of entole in 14:15, 21; 15:10, 12 with the use of logos as a synonym in 8:51, 52; 14:23, 24; 15:20; 17:6.

 

Then also we should look at martureo and maturia which occur sixteen times for the witness of Jesus (3:11, 32, 33; 4:44; 5:31; 7:7; 8:13, 14, 18; 13:21; 18:37. See also Rev. 19:13 and Rev. 1:2, 9; 20:4). Again John “calls attention to the voice (phone) of Jesus 9 times” (3:29; 5:25, 28; 10:3, 4, 16, 27; 11:43; 18:37). John records Jesus as saying “Amen, Amen” twenty-five times before important assertions. Fifty out of the sixty-one occurrences of laleo; lalo; and lalia (speak) have to do with Jesus speaking, compared with only nine occurrences in the synoptics (see esp. 8:43).

 

John refers to believing Jesus’ word or words (2:22; 4:50; 5:47; cf. 3:12; 10:25; 12:38), and abiding in His word (or it abiding in us) in 5:38 and 15:7. In 8:51, 52; 14:15, 21, 23, 24; 15:10, 20 John refers to keeping Jesus’ commands, word or words in a way not duplicated in the synoptics. Finally, (in this study) see 4:26 (cf. 4:10) and Jesus’ emphasis upon Jesus own words.

The Divine Logos - Pt. 2

 

C. The Roles of the Logos
Although the wording is brilliantly simple, an examination of the Prologue furnishes for us a great deal of help concerning what might be called the “roles” of the Logos. To begin with, the prologue places in front of us these facts:

 

Ÿ The Logos is a Person (1:3, 4, 14).

Ÿ There are three relations of Christ the Logos recorded in these opening verses. First, there is His relation with the Father “In the beginning” (1:1-2). Second is His relation to the world (1:3, 10). The third relationship of the Logos is that which He bears to humankind (1:11-14).

Ÿ The Logos was active with (Gk. pros) God (the Father). Ridderbos says that this designation “is intended as an indication not only of place but also of disposition and orientation.”^[1] Thus, in all respects the Eternal Logos was and is to be identified with God (1:1-2), though not the Father but the Son (1:18).

Ÿ This means that God, in the Person of the revealing incarnate Son (1:14, 18), is the Subject of John’s Gospel.

 

In addition to the above, three readily identifiable roles can be located within the Prologue. They center upon the great schemes of creation, revelation, and redemption.

 

Creation^[2]

The link with creation is established right off with the very first words of John’s Gospel, “In the beginning was the Word” The Apostle is taking the reader back to the creation account in Genesis 1:1ff., and showing that the Logos was directly involved in the creative process. To those who assert that John’s stress is not upon creation as such, but upon the pre-existence of the Logos prior to the creation, we do not think we are forced into a choice between the two. The Genesis narrative implies a creatio ex nihilo doctrine which would necessitate a complimentary doctrine of Divine pre-existence and perlocutory action. John is telling us that the Logos is this same creative God (1:1-2). Then in the third verse comes a clear statement about the creative role of the Logos: “All things were created by Him; and without Him was not anything made that was made.” (1:3). The Logos is a Person (N.B., “by Him…without Him”), not an organizing principle or a personified divine utterance. He is the cause of the ontological status of everything, and nothing which came into existence in the creative week owes its being to anything else.[3]

The Divine Logos - Pt. 1

It may sound somewhat unseemly for any theologian to refer to the Lord Jesus Christ as “the Logos of God,” but to conceive of Him (momentarily) in this abstract way opens up new lines of inquiry that are harder to see under His personal name. And, after all, the Apostle John was the first to do it.

If one comes to the term “Logos” with the mindset of the ancient Greek philosophers, the best thing that could be extracted from the prologue to John’s Gospel would be a personification but not a Person. But clearly John is not content with a personification. He has something extremely profound in mind; something that I believe provides a helpful fillip for a fully Christo-doxological motif.

Before we can expound a motif we must clear away the mound of misunderstandings that has been built up over the meaning of John’s Logos.

A. Meaning of the Term

The basic meaning of the word logo“ in Greek may be summarized as, “the expression of thought - not the mere name of an object - (a) as embodying a conception or idea, (b) a saying or statement, (c) discourse, speech, of instruction etc.”^[i] Thus, the idea of rationality, of a reasoned message of some sort, is central to the term.^[ii] Yet, at first glance it seems far from clear why the Apostle chose this designation.

It is clear that the concept of the Divine Logos that one encounters in the opening verses of John’s Gospel is of great importance to his doctrine of Christ. The main verses are given below:

 

In the beginning was the Word [Logos], and the Word [Logos] was with God, and the Word [Logos] was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were created by Him; and without Him was not anything made that was made. In Him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness comprehended it not. (John 1:1-5)

 

He was in the world, and the world was made by Him, and the world knew Him not. (John 1:10).

 

And the Word [Logos] was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld Him… (John 1:14a).

 

No man hath seen God [the Father] at any time; the only begotten Son,[iii] which is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him. (John 1:18).

 

 

We have isolated these verses, not because the other verses in the Prologue (vv. 1-1 are unimportant, but solely for the purpose of definition. These are the essential verses for the Logos teaching. We see a connection between the Word and God, the created order, and man.[iv] Clearly, in these passages John is very deliberately linking the Logos who became Christ in the flesh with the Creator God. We know that the Christ was named “Jesus” at the time of His birth (Lk. 2:21). But John is reaching far back before the creation to the relationship of the Logos/Son with God the Father from everlasting (Jn. 1:1-2, 18; cf. 17:5). Therefore, John is facing us with the implication that He who was to be known as Jesus of Nazareth in “the days of His flesh,” is the eternal Logos or Word of God. It is made clear that three great pillars of the Christian world and life view, Creation (1:1, 3), Revelation (1:4, 9, 14, 17-18), and Redemption (1:12-13), are bound to His Person. But we must turn to the question of ancient parallels before exploring these things further.

“Anti-Intellectualism” and Fundamentalism: A Friendly Rejoinder

Recently I posted a review of the book Promise Unfulfilled by Dr. Rolland McCune. I suppose one would call it a mixed review since although I applauded the book’s intentions and appreciated some of the chapters, I recounted a few misgivings as well. You may read what I wrote here.

In one of my criticisms of the book I made this remark:

“…the most glaring fact about this chapter is McCune’s reliance upon the very people whom he criticizes in his book! The names of Nash, Marsden, Brown, McGrath, Demarest, Davis, and Schaeffer (who is identified as neo-evangelical later on) are appealed to for the substantiation of the writer’s data and critique. And while a writer may legitimately quote an author with which he disagrees, it should be recognized that no fundamentalist is called upon in this chapter - an indication at least that the charge of anti-intellectualism against American fundamentalism does contain enough adhesive power to call any critic of neo-evangelicalism to a little self-examination once in a while.”

When I wrote this section I knew that if I used the term “anti-intellectualism” I might upset one or two people. That was not my intention. But I decided that the word belonged in my paragraph because it was an apt description of what I was concerned about in that part of my critique.

A Christian brother, Frank Sansone, who writes the blog A Thinking Man’s Thoughts kindly contacted me to let me know that he had taken issue with this part of my review. Frank raises two questions in his article that I would like to address in this post. My reasons for doing this are; a). Frank puts his finger on an important issue, and b). because I think that notwithstanding he has unwittingly misconstrued what I was trying to say in my review.

Natural Theology: An Evangelical Faux Pas?

Any discussion of the doctrine of Divine revelation or of apologetic method has to incorporate the matter of natural theology. Is natural theology a legitimate exercise when its foundational tenets are viewed in the light of Scripture? In the opinion of the majority of Protestant theologians and apologists the question is answered in the affirmative. Many authoritative names, representing Arminian, Reformed, and Dispensational schools of thought have bought into some kind of natural theology.[1] Such luminaries as Charles Hodge, B. B. Warfield, Robert L. Dabney, Lewis Sperry Chafer, J. Oliver Buswell, and Henry C. Thiessen all found a place for a natural theology in their works. Among distinguished contemporaries the list would include Charles C. Ryrie, Robert L. Lightner, James Leo Garrett, Bruce Demarest, Gordon Lewis, Alister McGrath, Donald Bloesch, Wayne Grudem, John S. Feinberg, and R. C. Sproul Sr.

In the realm of Christian apologetics the list is almost endless. In addition to a few of the names above, one might name (among past and present), C. S. Lewis, John Warwick Montgomery, Norman L. Geisler, J. P. Moreland, Ronald Nash, William Lane Craig, Winfried Corduan, Douglas Groothuis, Ravi Zacharias, Paul Copan, Richard Swinburne, and Gary Habermas. The head-count is impressive. So why ask the question? What is the problem?

To answer these questions we must put to ourselves some more specific ones: First, what is natural theology? Second, what are its difficulties? Third, does the doctrine of general revelation lead us to recognize some form of natural theology?

Justifying One’s Assertions

Below is a short response to a rather vitriolic missive from a person who evidently did not appreciate my Thoughts on the Dawkins/Lennox debate.

Dear Kam,

 

I’m not sure how much of this reply you will get around to reading. Your response does not exactly fill me with assurance that you read the whole of my original article. In that post I already pre-empted most of what you wrote, minus the vitriol. However, I shall treat your remarks as if I had not written anything previously and shall try to deal with your note.

 

Allow me first to say that I was not born with a Bible in my hand. I was brought up and educated in England where I do not ever recall hearing any explanation of the world apart from evolution and the Big Bang. I have a college education and I assure you that I have heard the other side of the story over and over again. I am either “just stupid” as you seem to think, or I am duped, or I am actually in the right. I’ll let you decide that. Only please make sure your decision is made on the basis of having thought through what you read.

Knox, Knox, Who’s There?

A Reply to “An Open Letter To Evangelicals and Other Interested Parties: The People of God, The Land of Israel, and the Impartiality of the Gospel,” issued by Knox Theological Seminary.

This is a paper I wrote for the Conservative Theological Journal which never saw the light of day (I can’t grumble, I used to edit it). I have been reading Kim Riddlebarger’s A Case for Amillennialism and Timothy Weber’s On the Road to Armaggeddon and I remembered the piece, bits and pieces of which have found their way into other essays.

As far as I know, this letter has not received the negative press it deserves, but here are two responses you might want to peruse. The first is by Steve Hays, showing that one can be Reformed (and amillennial) and not be involved in what to many will look like a mild form of anti-semitism (Anyone opening Palmer Robertson’s The Israel of God and reading about America’s political allegiance to Israel being questioned has to wonder why an author would concern himself with politics in such a work).

As the “Open Letter” is still up (in English and French) I don’t think it inappropriate to post this item now.

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2005/06/open-letter-to-evangelicals.html

http://faculty.bbc.edu/mstallard/Biblical_Studies/Eschatology/eschatology_dr.htm

 

The faculty and friends of Knox Theological Seminary, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida have recently felt moved to rebut certain statements by some evangelical leaders relative to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Evidently, these unidentified evangelical spokesmen have “urged the endorsement of far-reaching and unilateral political commitments to the people and land of Israel…citing Holy Scripture as the basis for those commitments.”

Exactly what these “unilateral political commitments” are is not specified, but back of “the political commitments in question are two fatally flawed propositions.” These two supposedly erroneous propositions will be discussed below. Before turning to these two propositions, and addressing the ten counter-propositions which follow on their heels, we would first like to make some general observations.