Friday, April 18, 2008

Are you Enlightened?


Jupiter Lighthouse, Jupiter, Florida

From:

http://thekingpin68.blogspot.com/2006/01/mphil-wales-2003.html

Enlightenment?

McGrath noted that the change took place beginning in the seventeenth century which led to the era of the Enlightenment. It shifted the defence of the gospel from revelation and Scripture to philosophy. The view was: "To defend the Christian faith, it was advisable to set aside traditional ways of justifying it, and instead to rely upon the wisdom of philosophy." McGrath (1992: 40). McGrath was critical of this approach which overlooked revelation and Scripture, and instead looked to philosophy. It changed the God represented from a personal God of Scripture to a perfect philosophical God.

He was particularly critical of seventeenth century philosopher Rene Descartes. McGrath thought that the " . . .enormous emphasis which came to be placed upon the perfection of God by Descartes was totally compromised by the undeniable fact of the existence of evil and suffering. How could a perfect being allow such imperfection to exist?" McGrath (1992: 41).

McGrath believed that this type of thinking, which he described as creating the god of philosophers, put so much emphasis on God’s perfect attributes that it took away from God’s actual experience in suffering as Christ. So when modern critics were criticizing God, they often criticised this perfect, aloof God whom they thought represented Christianity, whereas the God of revelation and Scripture suffered personally on earth. He died for the sins of humanity, was resurrected and will restore creation.

Seventeenth century revision of Christian thought was known as the Age of Reason, which led to the Enlightenment. Colin Brown described the Enlightenment as follows:

The Age of Enlightenment (German Die Aufklarung) covers roughly the eighteenth century. It is sometimes identified with the Age of Reason, but the latter term covers both the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Although the Enlightenment had some of its roots in seventeenth century rationalism, the ideas which characterize the Enlightenment went far beyond the rationalism of Descartes, Spinoza, and the thinkers of their time. Brown (1996: 355).

So from Brown’s idea, the roots of the Enlightenment started with philosophers like Descartes, but went beyond those men. Basically the ideas McGrath was discussing took place in the Enlightenment - Age of Reason.

David A. Pailin, of Manchester University, stated:

The Enlightenment’s criticism of the authority of tradition led to increasing secularization in attitudes and ideas. Nature is seen as an ordered whole rather than as a stage for divine interventions and supernatural happenings. So far as religious beliefs are concerned, claims to revelation are acceptable only when they are rationally justified and their contents subject to reason’s judgement. Biblical stories and accepted doctrines are not immune from criticism. Works like Bayle’s Historical and Critical Dictionary and Voltaire’s Philosophical Dictionary highlight the faults of revered figures and the questionability of standard doctrines. Historical and literary investigations into the Bible develop. Reports about miracles, especially that of the resurrection, give rise to considerable discussion. There is great hostility to priestcraft and suspicion of ecclesiastical pretensions to guide human understanding. Pailin (1999: 180).

David Pailin’s comments demonstrate some of the modern assumptions made by philosophers of religion concerning Christianity. As McGrath indicated, there is a distrust of revelation and Scripture. As Pailin pointed out, revelation and ecclesiastical pretensions would often face great hostility philosophically. I agree with the Enlightenment approach to review Christian claims through reason, but it appears that more faith is put in the Enlightenment critics of Christianity than in the people who wrote the original work. Enlightenment thinking is committed to ". . . reason as the proper tool and final authority for determining issues." Pailin (1999: 179).

Enlightenment thinking has human reason as the final authority, whereas traditional Christianity uses human reason, but it assumes that human nature is fallen and God must reveal himself to that reason. Enlightenment thinking, in my view, rests on the faulty idea that finite man should be able to be the final judge regarding ideas about God.

Enlightenment era thinking, which is still prominent in liberal circles today, believes that man has the ability to reason out who God is, whereas traditional Christianity believes that God must reveal himself in order for human beings to come to some understanding of who he is. So the Enlightenment puts greater emphasis on the human mind comprehending God, whereas traditional Christianity puts emphasis on Scripture inspired by God, which must teach human beings about God.

Two problems come to mind concerning the human mind’s ability to know God. First, the human mind is finite, God is infinite. It could be said that human beings could only understand God in a limited way. This is not to say that the limited human understanding was in error or without logic, but simply limited. For this reason, I think in this relationship God would have to take the initiative in presenting himself to humanity for greater understanding, and this would lead to revelation. Second, I believe there is significant evidence in Scripture and everyday life, that humanity is imperfect and sinful, and in a spiritual condition where they would have to be transformed in order to have a relationship with God. I am not saying that human beings cannot understand things about God without revelation, but I am stating that revelation is required for a changed spirit which could lead to a relationship with God. I, therefore, do not think that human reason outside of revelation should be our final authority in theology.

BROWN, COLIN. (1996) ‘The Enlightenment’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books

PAILIN, DAVID A. (1999) ‘Enlightenment’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press Ltd.

MCGRATH, ALSITER. (1992) Suffering, London, Hodder and Stoughton Limited.






16 comments:

  1. Nice tough-guy photo, to scare off any blog-trolls...

    ReplyDelete
  2. It seems we are now in an era of anti-enlightenment.
    Unthinking fundamentalists provoking unthinking anti-Christian responses, accusations without debate on both sides...
    http://www.weirdcrap.com/chick/archive.html

    ReplyDelete
  3. Nice tough-guy photo, to scare off any blog-trolls...

    Thanks, Chucklins.

    Yes, thanks to God's guidance, my hard and hopefully smart work, my blog readers, commenters and links, thekingpin68 and satire and theology are slowly steadily growing. But, I need to bring the good folks in and keep the bad folks out. This means persons will not get past comment moderation if they want to be an evil clown.

    I have only blocked two persons so far in four years and one was off Outlook Express, the other off thekingpin68. One was a Latter-Day Saint that Rick knows that would not listen and used ad hominem, that I blocked on Outlook Express. The other was a UFO conspiracy person who would not interact with my material, but only wanted to publish outlandish claims. I have had a few possible 'nutjobs' post comments on satire and theology, but no one has been out of line as of yet. Occasionally I think a small minority of my satire and theology commenters did too many drugs in the 1960-1970s. I have not been booted off any sites as of yet, but have been ignored plenty, but that is standard for leaving comments. One US ex-military man tried to intimidate me on one site and I left rather than confront the man, as neither of us would likely back down. He thought his battle with Islam was serious as a Christian, and yet somehow my satire blog was not serious. There are many closed-minded folks on the web, and often the best thing to do is ignore these people. But, they should play nice, or stay off my blogs.

    ReplyDelete
  4. It seems we are now in an era of anti-enlightenment.
    Unthinking fundamentalists provoking unthinking anti-Christian responses, accusations without debate on both sides...
    http://www.weirdcrap.com/chick/archive.html


    Thanks, Chuck.

    I see no balance of intellectual presentation with that site, whatsoever.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I'm an ex-military man who believes that aliens deposited us here on Earth to harvest us as food, and they are coming back soon to eat us!

    Just kidding.

    Good article post. And that auto-mechanic cartoon is funny!

    It is odd that, at the same time that there is so much 'higher criticism' or 'textual criticism' regarding the Bible; there is also widespread biblical illiteracy, "name-it-claim-it" teaching, "continuing revelation" theology, and the "prosperity gospel," all of which are heavily influenced by 'New Age' thinking as well as materialism. So much false doctrine has crept into the Body of Christ as a result of a lack of careful checking of new teachings against Scripture as the Bereans did.

    ReplyDelete
  6. A funny thing is the ex-military man was defending the female owner of the blog. I did nothing, but be good to her, and he tried to intimidate me. He was the big macho GI Joe guard dog and I was perhaps the dangerous man with the education that joked around. He called himself a follower of the son of a carpenter. He was trying to be really slick and macho, but I saw through him. He was just the big dog trying to keep another big dog away from the dog house....grrrr. I have a problem with Christians that publicly, on-line show disrespect for fellow Christians in that manner. It shows a we vs. them mentality which is wrong in the Church.

    Extreme liberals and extreme fundamentalists often oppose a contextual evaluation of Scripture and related theology. Persons influenced by both groups have opposed me in my academic work, and surveys, watch for it on my blogs in the future. I may very well ask you to help out. Those who completely deny any religious Christian connection may be critical as well. I will be there to help you, if need be, when I can.

    Cheers, Jeff.:)

    ReplyDelete
  7. Mr. Kingpin
    Your picture is up to date and great. Be yourself. Be real. Oh by the way, please contact Oscar "Meyer-Weiner" Goldman when you're ready to get your six million dollar surgery.
    -Steve Austin-

    ReplyDelete
  8. I think both Oscar Mayer and Oscar Goldman are on the air very little nowadays. My surgery is covered, thank God.

    There should have been an episode of the Six Million Dollar Man where the Oscar Mayer Wienermobile battles K.I.T.T. from Knight Rider.

    Cheers.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Hi Russ,
    Liked this article mate. Extremes of any kind are not good as they don't leave any room to admit that a serious error might have been made.

    I suppose for some the stakes are high because we are talking the most important thing. (Are we not)

    One goal of modern thinking is to have everything "worked out" and I suppose our curiosity has to be satisfied so we relentlessly press on for the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

    Personally I think life needs a little mystery otherwise it would be a bit predictable for me.

    Catch you again soon.
    LSL is great.
    Russell.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Russ,

    Was hat "big dog" ex-military man just trying to 'suck up' to the female owner of the blog?

    I just did a Google search on "contextual evaluation of Scripture," and the following was listed as number TWO out of about 62,000 results found! LOL!:

    thekingpin68©: Apologetics and the closed-minded
    This person would not deal with a contextual evaluation of Scripture and related theology. I spent two hours plus preparing apologetics related emails in ...
    thekingpin68.blogspot.com/2007/10/apologetics-and-closed-minded.html - 112k -

    You said, "I may very well ask you to help out."

    I will be happy to help out, Russ.

    Its funny that, if people talk about Mickey Mouse or Batman, it is unlikely that much disagreement will come of it. And if there is any disagreement, its no big deal. That's because Mickey Mouse and Batman are not deep personal convictions that we hold. But when people talk about following Jesus, its a whole different ballgame.

    Not only that, but when it comes to God, Satan wants to hurt God in any way he can, by trying to turn people against God (because he knows that God loves us), and by trying to turn Christians against other Christians.

    I have been a member of a Charismatic/Lutheran Evangelical church where the Pastor and some of the congregation hated John MacArthur, since John MacArthur is against Charismatic beliefs (I have his book, "Charismatic Chaos"). I have also belonged to a Baptist church (which was listed on 9marks.org) that practically called Rick Warren and his "The Purpose Driven Life" book wicked and evil.
    I have Rick Warren's book as well.
    People at both extremes say and do and believe things that I don't always agree with.

    "...where the Oscar Mayer Wienermobile battles K.I.T.T. from Knight Rider"...LOL! That's about as silly as Mole Man vs. The Penguin!

    ReplyDelete
  11. Great post. Faith and reason support each other, carry each other to heights unattainable on their own... witness the rest of the world's traditional religions and philosophies, they may be interesting and mysterious or powerful and promising, but ultimately these other religions and philosophies remain (gnosticisms and scientisms) are simply dogmatic and either unproductive or dangerous to human flourishing. The religious thinkers of the Enlightenment, in the effort to preserve Christianity from the assaults of science, reduced Christianity to its faith element. Insulated from reason, Christianity in the Protestant world became more and more a private and irrelevant matter to public life, since it no longer spoke with the authority of objective reason...

    ReplyDelete
  12. Liked this article mate. Extremes of any kind are not good as they don't leave any room to admit that a serious error might have been made.

    Thanks, Russell.:)

    A problem with extremes is that one may not be able to objectively analyse his/her worldview. There is the danger of following a worldview for reasons beyond evidence for that philosophy. Humanity needs divine guidance in word and spirit on this matter.

    Enjoy your break.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Was hat "big dog" ex-military man just trying to 'suck up' to the female owner of the blog?

    Good question.

    I just did a Google search on "contextual evaluation of Scripture," and the following was listed as number TWO out of about 62,000 results found! LOL!:

    thekingpin68©: Apologetics and the closed-minded
    This person would not deal with a contextual evaluation of Scripture and related theology. I spent two hours plus preparing apologetics related emails in ...
    thekingpin68.blogspot.com/2007/10/apologetics-and-closed-minded.html - 112k -


    Thanks, this blog is slowly growing.

    Your support and the support of my other links and commenters is very much appreciated.

    We can agree on the essentials and be open-minded on secondary issues.

    None of has to be Oscar the Grouch.

    Cheers, Jeff:)

    ReplyDelete
  14. The religious thinkers of the Enlightenment, in the effort to preserve Christianity from the assaults of science, reduced Christianity to its faith element. Insulated from reason, Christianity in the Protestant world became more and more a private and irrelevant matter to public life, since it no longer spoke with the authority of objective reason...

    Thanks very much, Mr Ox.

    Reason, and reasonable faith, has always been part of the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament, and it is a shame that some Enlightenment thinkers missed this crucial understanding. It is also a shame that too many modern Christians do not use significant faith and reason in their Christian walk.

    ReplyDelete
  15. "I believe there is significant evidence in Scripture and everyday life, that humanity is imperfect and sinful, and in a spiritual condition where they would have to be transformed in order to have a relationship with God."

    I agree. There is a vast differnce between knowledge for knowledge sake, and knowing God Himself via revelation. Many athiests know many things about God, it doesn't change their heart or become true understanding tho, its just knowledge about God, as a distant and unfamiliar Being. I don't drive, but I'm sure if I read enough car magazines I could learn lots of things about cars, without still ever getting behind the steering wheel

    ReplyDelete
  16. Wise words, Deejay.

    Regeneration via God, is required for human beings to be Biblically spiritually enlightened in regard to Salvation. This should lead to the study of Scripture, theology and perhaps philosophy. Further enlightenment should occur.

    Thank you.)

    Russ

    ReplyDelete