Bosphorus Bridge, Turkey connecting Europe to Asia (trekearth.com)
March 30, 2011
My Methodology
This post will be somewhat speculative and definitely non-exhaustive. I am not claiming these are all the influences leading to non-Biblical Christianity with some individuals and movements. These are reasons that come to mind from my studies and my last two degrees were in a secular context in departments where certain persons were moderate and even very liberal and I have had to consider these issues. As well, Westminster Seminary of Pennsylvania recently put on a related conference in Vancouver and so I continue to ponder on these issues.
I am not what I would consider a fundamentalist. I do reason that the Scripture is revelation from God that God guided certain persons to write. The original autographs do not exist, as far it is known, and the copies do have scribal errors, but the essential theology, philosophy and worldview of the Hebrew Bible and New Testament from academic appearances have been maintained. I hold to the inerrant word of God. I favour with the use of an English reading (in my case), seeking the original languages and the use of commentaries and other texts, finding the contextual meaning of Scripture and therefore finding proper theology. I do acknowledge the importance of methodology and background studies in academics, including in religious/philosophical studies. The Bible it is not all written in plain literal language and can be figurative literal.
Therefore, I reason the Bible is not mythology or fiction.
I am not a liberal, because of my stance on the Scripture and my resulting theology. I do see all truth as God's truth and the study of secular philosophy and in particular philosophy of religion can assist in the overall pursuit of knowledge and truth found via Biblical Studies and theology.
I would classify myself as moderate conservative, largely due to my academic approach.
I do not classify those who claim the Biblical God and triune God of the New Testament, that do not share my Reformed views, for example, or other secondary views I hold to, as those that have abandoned Biblical Christianity, and as sell-outs. In this article I am referencing persons and movements that seek to radically modify Christian faith and philosophy in non-Biblical ways.
It should be noted that extreme forms of fundamentalism that fail to exegete Scripture reasonably and properly leading to proper theology, also can lead to a corruption and even abandonment of Biblical Christianity, just as can radical liberal approaches.
Recent related post:
Kant (1724-1804)
The Enlightenment
From my 2009 post on Enlightenment (edited): '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.
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 judgment. 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 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 humanity 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.'
Postmodernism
From my PhD:
Philosophically, I would reason for the finite mind there is no such thing as complete objectivity and there are always subjective aspects to reasoning. I reason the infinite God can see things perfectly and fully objectively and also sees the subjective. However, the Scripture does appear to make certain largely and primarily objective claims. For example, in John 14:6 where Jesus claims (from the NASB) that he is the way, the truth and the life, and that no one comes to the Father but through him. This appears to be an objective truth claim in regard to the nature of God and the nature of salvation.
Empiricism
The permanent strand of philosophy that ties knowledge to experience, as in sensory consciousness and in what can be observed as true by the use of the senses. Blackburn (1996: 119). Knowledge outside of this approach is denied and there is no such thing as a priori knowledge or intuitive knowledge that can be found by the use of reason. Blackburn (1996: 119).
A problem with this Blackburn states is explaining how thought does not derive from experience but appears to allow persons to categorize experience. Blackburn (1996: 119). He also noted that mathematics, and the logical appear to have no basis in experience. Blackburn (1996: 119). In can be deduced that there are mathematical and logical truths that exist outside of empirical experience.
Therefore, there would also be philosophical and theological truths that exist outside of empirical experiences.
Further:
Empirical experiences allow the human being to understand in thought mathematics, logic, philosophy and theology.
To use empiricism in Religious Studies at the expense of other forms of thought such as rationalism which uses unaided reason in order to gain knowledge, Blackburn (1996: 318) in the discipline of philosophy/philosophy of religion, and theology which trusts and depends in Biblical supernatural revelation, is to overlook certain means of finding truth.
Therefore, empiricism is a valid and reasonable form of philosophy and very necessary in science, but is limited and should not be the only worldview considered in the pursuit of truth.
A Philosophy of God's Love over God's Justice
No question God's love for humanity is seen in the New Testament by Christ's atoning work (Mark 10: 45, Hebrews 9, 10) including justification (Romans 1-3, Galatians 2) and sanctification (2 Thessalonians 2: 13-15) and his resurrection (John 20, 21, 1 Corinthians 15) for humanity as he elects those in Christ (Ephesians 1, Romans 8). It is also demonstrated in the Hebrew Bible with various covenants.
In my mind often certain conservatives and fundamentalists emphasize their particular secondary doctrines and related cultural beliefs so strongly that they do not sufficiently love others, this love should be a result of loving God fully (Matthew 22, Mark 12, Luke 10). In the name of justice it appears they reason others can be shunned or not fully respected because others outside of these views are not following God properly.
Some liberals, especially the more radical ones, often seem to at times wish to include so many within the Church that they are willing to overlook claims made in the Scripture that would exclude others, at least from membership, such as the Ten Commandment and other morality claims and commands. God's love is emphasized at the expense of justice. Christians should love their neighbour (Matthew 22, Mark 12), and Christians are to love one another (John 13). Others of different non-Biblical views should always be loved. But, there are objective standards given in Scripture and final judgment for those outside of Christ (Revelation 20) and in Christ (2 Corinthians 5: 10).
Supporting persons and churches claiming to be Christian which overemphasize the love of God at the expense of justice are really setting certain many persons up for a disappointing final review from God, whether the persons being judged are in or outside of Christ, although obviously it is much better to be in Christ.
Therefore, I think this philosophy is theologically misguided error which places one aspect of God above the other.
Further: It is not loving in a proper sense.
BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996)
Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford, University, Press.
BROWN, C. (1996) The Enlightenment, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.),
Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.
GRENZ, STANLEY J., DAVID GURETZKI AND CHERITH FEE NORDLING (1999)
Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms, Downers Grove, Ill., InterVarsity Press.
PAILIN, D.A. (1999) Enlightenment, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.),
A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press Limited.
VEITH, GENE EDWARD, JR. (1994)
Postmodern Times, Wheaton Illinois, Crossway Books.
Las Vegas, Nevada strip (Ron Niebrugge)
Bristol, England (trekearth.com)
Vancouver, BC (trekearth.com)
BA, MTS, MPhil, PhD (Order on wall, PhD, up BA, down MTS, MPhil)
My wall completed after my PhD graduation party.
