Heartless?

I have heard some people say that a Reformed view of Scripture and the Gospel promotes an elitist, heartless, intellectual determinism. Though that can happen, I do not think that it is exclusive to a Reformed understanding of Scripture. Nevertheless, Reformed thinking is what I was thinking about this morning.

As I was driving to church, I was listening to an introduction to the White Horse Inn Discussion Group. They were recounting the inception of the group and the general intent of the group. One particular sound byte that they were talking about was from a show a number of years ago. It was a recording that they took while interviewing a number of professed believers. In the interview, they basically asked the question: can you describe the Gospel? As one might assume the answers were widely varied and every single person interviewed missed the point completely. That of course made the point of those on the panel of the White Horse Discussion Group and they went on.

Some time later, the White Horse Inn members heard about how that particular set of interviews impacted Dr. R. C. Sproul who was, at the time of the original airing, driving in his car. As he listened to people’s understanding, or lack thereof, of the Gospel, he became overwhelmed with sorrow; it was said that he actually had to pull his car to the side of the road as he wept over the lack of understanding that has so permeated Christianity at large. There are few men in Christianity that have such an incredible burden for people to know the truth about the one true God and Savior of men.

I think of my own life and I am shamed by that. In thinking about my past, I can recount breaking down in that type of anguish only over losing a dear friend or relative. I have not yet come to such a point of love for the truth that I weep when people do not comprehend or even care to comprehend it. In many ways, Dr. Sproul’s response almost makes me look like the one  who is heartless.

So then, I would ask: Does the example set by Dr. Sproul demonstrate a heartless, determinism? Have you ever been burdened for God’s truth to such a degree? Instead of criticizing the finer points of his theology, though they probably exist for most of us, let us (myself included) be challenged by his example; why don’t we cultivate the same kind of love for our God and Savior.

Greek Humanism: Continued in the Teachings of Thomas Aquinas

This article is actually a sequel to my first article entitled, “A Brief History of Greek Humanism.” Its subject matter was suggested by a close friend of mine and has proven to be a very interesting study. I hope those of you who are able to read this agree.

In the past months I have become increasingly aware of the fact that philosophy is an inescapable reality. Though many of us might tend to shy away from philosophy as being only for the academic “eggheads,” it affects every one of us equally. That being true, we might ask the question, “What exactly is philosophy?” Dr. Michael Vlach, on his website, offers this definition of philosophy: “Philosophy is the attempt to think rationally and critically about the most important matters” (Vlach). Also, despite his innumerable problems, Immanuel Kant well summarizes philosophy as the attempt to answer three questions: “(1) what can I know? (2) what should I know? and (3) what may I hope?” (Vlach) By those two definitions of philosophy, it is without question that every single human being, regardless of academic or intellectual background, has contemplated philosophy. To maintain relevance, it is that backdrop we must keep in mind as we begin to examine Thomas Aquinas and his relation to Christian philosophy.

Thomas Aquinas has often been lauded as one of the greatest contributors to modern philosophy and theology, and that fact is undeniable. There is, however, room for debate when it comes to the value of such contributions.

Aquinas was brought up in a quite well-to-do family and was sent to school in preparation for service in the Roman Catholic Church. While at school, Aquinas decided to join the Dominican Order and despite several hurtles he eventually graduated with his master’s degree. During his education he became increasingly intrigued by Aristotle and ultimately became Aristotelian in his philosophy. It was Aquinas’ adherence to Aristotelian thought that changed his theology forever (Atkinson; McKinery).

As Aquinas developed his own positions on philosophy and theology he came to believe that the two could be viewed separately. Aquinas did, however, clarify his claim by observing that a study of theology was necessary at a certain point. Even at that, Aquinas’ idea was revolutionary for his day because most viewed philosophy and theology as contradictory, not complimentary. Edward Younkins, a professor at the Wheeling Jesuit University in West Virginia, stated,  “For Aquinas, the whole of human knowledge forms one all-encompassing, orderly, hierarchical system with sciences at the base, philosophy above them, and theology at the top . . . [and] that divine revelation in no way contradicts that which men discover by the use of natural reason” (Younkins).

It seems the core of the issue boils down to Aquinas’ basic view of general and special revelation. In his work, Summa Theologica, Aquinas gives us a view of what he believed about the human knowledge of God. In answer to the question of whether God is self-evident, Aquinas answered “that God exists is not self-evident” based upon the philosophical supposition that “no one can mentally admit the opposite of what is self-evident” (Aquinas). In other words, man should not have the ability to claim the opposite of what is obviously true. Aquinas then went on to answer the question of whether it can be demonstrated that God exists. He stated “‘The invisible things of Him are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made’ (Romans 1:20). But this would not be unless the existence of God could be demonstrated through the things that are made; for the first thing we must know of anything is whether it exists” (Aquinas). Therefore, Aquinas was making the point that nature is the key to demonstrating the existence of God. From that point, he then proceeded to propose five specific proofs for the existence of God, which have since become exceedingly well-known.

To summarize, Aquinas denied that the existence of God is self-evident while holding to the belief that the existence of God could be proven through the observation of nature. It is that philosophy that survives today in the form of classical apologetics and, to some degree, evidentialism. The fact is that the philosophy of Aquinas, the classical apologist, and the evidentialist have in common a basic reliance upon the rationality of the human being.

Now that we have established a very basic sketch of Aquinas’ perspective and driving principles, we can take a discerning look at how we should view those principles. Going back to Aquinas’ belief of being able to separate philosophy and theology, we must ask the question: Can this be so? According to the definitions of philosophy as stated by Dr. Vlach and Immanuel Kant, I submit that the two disciplines cannot be separated. Aquinas’ belief regarding the hierarchal structure of knowledge may well be correct; however, placing philosophy in an entirely different plane than theology is quite dangerous. This is true because, as we have already examined, “philosophy is the attempt to think rationally and critically about the most important matters” and answer the questions “(1) what can I know? (2) what should I know? and (3) what may I hope?” (Vlach) As one begins to answer those questions, he must deal with such things as the purpose of the universe, the reason for the existence of man, and even the determination of why things function the way they do. To answer such important questions rationally and critically, the possibility and place of God must be considered by the true philosopher. When the philosopher considers the possibility of God he has just crossed into the theological.

At this point it is important to clarify what is meant by the term “theological.” Aquinas viewed the term “theological” only in the context of divine revelation, which he deemed to be Scripture or what we term as special revelation (McKinery). Because of Thomas’ narrow definition of theological truth, he did not properly recognize the natural world as being God’s revelation or what we call general revelation. In his mind, the natural world only indicated God but was not actually a form of God’s revelation. According to Romans 1:19, such an assumption would be incorrect. The verse states, “That which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath showed it unto them.” The idea behind the word “manifest” clearly carries the idea of making something known or to show openly or plainly. We see then that God reveals Himself to all men aside from any special revelation. In other words, all men have an innate knowledge or general revelation of God apart from any particular observational studies. As Paul moves to verse 20, he joins the verses with a word that shows an assigned reason. In this case, that reason is nature; God has revealed Himself through nature and the complexities of what He has created. Paul’s intention goes much deeper than what Aquinas observed. God’s creation does not simply point to Him but it truly manifests Him and His power. In short, even nature itself is a revelation of God.

In conclusion, we must not make the mistake of separating our philosophy and our theology. Philosophy, even in its attempts to find common ground between the religious and irreligious will fail. That is due to the fact that God’s revelation is clearly seen even outside the bounds of Scripture. Even before the most cautious philosopher begins his study, he is accountable to the revelation of God in nature and as a result he is biased for or against belief in God. As Romans 1 demonstrates, the claim to be able to form a neutral philosophy is a sadly naïve attempt to escape the reality of the absolutely supreme and Holy God. If we do not make this separation we will open the door to allowing humanistic paradigms into our philosophical and theological framework.

Sources:

Atkinson, Melissa S. “Aristotle and Aquinas: Intrinsic Morality versus God’s Morality.” http://rebirthofreason.com/Articles/atkinson/Aristotle_and_Aquinas_Intrinsic_Morality_versus_Gods_Morality.shtml

McKinery, Ralph. “Saint Thomas Aquinas.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy 12 Jul. 1999. Rev. 30 Sept. 2009. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aquinas/

The Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas. Trans. Fathers of the English Dominican Province. http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm

Vlach, Michael J. “What is Philosophy?” http://www.theologicalstudies.org/articles/article/1527417/17131.htm

Younkins, Edward W. “Thomas Aquinas’ Christian Aristotelianism.” http://www.quebecoislibre.org/06/060122-5.htm

 

A Brief History of Greek Humanism

It is said that the humanistic philosopher Protagoras summed up the Grecian philosophy when he said, “man is the measure of all things.” Protagoras lived in the 400's B.C. and it was his idea of a humanistically centered philosophy that really controlled Greek thinking from then on. It should be noted, however, that humanism was no new idea. Though it might not have been so clearly stated up to that point, humanism began in the Garden of Eden when man tried to become like God by partaking of the forbidden fruit. The events that led to the Great Flood, were brought about because man's “every imagination . . . was only evil continually” (Gen. 6:5). During the time of the judges “there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes” (Jgs. 17:6). The list of man's placing himself and his own desires above God's commandments of righteousness is virtually endless. That being true, Protagoras did not come up with anything new; he was just the one who is known for stating it so succinctly. 

Socrates, though younger than Protagoras, was on of his contemporaries and seems to have been strongly affected by his philosophical ideas. During the days of Socrates, Sophism was the dominating philosophical idea. The sophists believed that since there were no real gods to punish men, men should live however they felt they should live. In essence, it was the first introduction of outright relativism. When men abandon the one true God, they abandon the only source of absolute truth. From that point, morals become totally relative to each person. When Socrates began his own quest to deal with the issue of morals, he was extremely dissatisfied with the sophist conclusion. For that reason, Socrates set out to answer the question, “what is the best way to live?” Basically, Socrates was on a quest for absolutes. Sadly, however, Socrates concluded that there was no God or gods. Because of his denial of the deities, Socrates was sentenced to death by the Athenian government. By his life of study and final conclusion, Socrates proved that when one does not reason from an immutable God, there can be no foundation upon which to build a system of absolutes. If the human being does not reason from the belief in God, he will end in a denial of God. 

Plato followed in Socrates' footsteps attempting to answer the question of how men should live. Aristotle then followed in Plato's footsteps as a most brilliant student of his. The primary objective of both Plato and Aristotle was to show how men could see order and purpose in the surrounding world. Aristotle even came to the final conclusion about the existence of a the creator God. In the final analysis Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle all had significantly differing world views but they all had the commonality of a humanistic base of reasoning. Whether the philosopher denies the existence of God or holds to the existence of God, until that philosopher has recognized man's responsibility to God he has discovered nothing. That is truly the difference between Christianity and humanism.

In Acts 17:18, we see one of the most vivid clashes of humanism and Christianity as Paul went toe to toe with the most respected philosophers of the day. The verse tells us that Paul was confronted by Epicureans and Stoics. The Epicureans were basically hedonists because they believed that there was no creator god and the gods that did exist were totally disconnected from the lives of human beings. As a result, they believed that life was to be governed by pleasure and though their intentions were for properly regulated, governed pleasure it turned into total hedonism as the philosophy was practiced by the younger generations. Stoicism on the other hand adhered to the belief in God but that all things, including God, were bound by fate. They viewed happiness as being achieved only by one's insensibility to pain. Though their ultimate view of the future state differed greatly, they were basically pantheists and believed that they would eventually be absorbed into god.

When Paul went before those philosophers he was mocked by both because he was seemingly ignorant to both. To the Epicureans he was naïve to believe that there was such a creator God as he detailed in the following verses. To the Stoics Paul was foolish to believe that God was personal rather than being in part of all creation. It was for that reason that they called Paul a “babbler,” which literally meant “seed picker.” In essence, the philosophers were accusing Paul of being an ignorant fool who was making a sad attempt at gleaning truth from their great wisdom or worse yet distorting the Grecian gods. Instead of allowing himself to be challenged to a philosophical debate, Paul simply declared the truth of God and made appeal to their innate knowledge of God.

The fact that the philosophers had an inborn knowledge of God brings us to Romans chapter 1. In Romans 1, Paul clearly shows that man has an ingrained knowledge of God simply from seeing the creation around him (vs. 18-20). There can be no clearer statement that men are accountable to God simply by the declaration of His magnificent creation. It was that truth that Paul leveraged in Acts 17 as he pointed out their own ignorant worship of the “UNKOWN GOD.” They knew there was a God but they would only worship Him in their own ignorance. As the Athenian philosophers “knew God” and “glorified him not as God” they became “vain in their imaginations . . . professing themselves wise, they became fools” (Rom. 1:21, 22) In the darkness of the Greek philosophy, there was a hint of truth but instead of seeking out that truth they became immersed in their vain imaginations. 

It is those Greek philosophies that have rippled through history manifesting themselves in every aspect of culture even to the present. In recent years especially, there has been a resurgence in the blatant denial of absolutes. Men are seeking for a God but they do not want the God of the Bible because He demands accountability; He demands obedience; He demands a life of righteousness. Instead of embracing the one true and righteous God, they embrace the God of their “imaginations . . . professing themselves to be wise, they became [or are becoming] fools” (Rom. 1:22). This just illustrates the truth of Ecclesiastes 1:9 which tells us that “there is no new thing under the sun.”

For the believer, this should make us stop and think about what our driving principle really is. It is so easy to allow a man-centered thought process to taint our thinking. We must always reason from God to man, not the other way around. The entire purpose of history, creation, and mankind has been to give glory to God.

To GOD ALONE "be Glory forever. Amen" (Rom. 11:36).