 |
| Fraser River |
June 20 2003
Sermon
Grace Baptist Church: Michael Phillips on Liberalism
Cited
The Enlightenment was a supposed flowering of knowledge in Europe, beginning in 1687. Its big idea was Reason (which is often capitalized). The thinkers of that time thought that Reason was the measure of all things. If it is not reasonable to them, it is not be true!
Cited
By rejecting all authority (but their own) and ignoring tradition, the Thinkers soon found many things wrong with the authority of Scripture, the Divinity of Christ, the Fall of Man, the Atonement, the Resurrection, the Judgment, Heaven and Hell. What Christians always took for God's Word became little more than a collection of primitive religious hopes with a good deal of fairy tale mixed in.
---
Some edited previous work of mine on 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).
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 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 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.
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 *non-exhaustively) 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, 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.
Back to the sermon, and a key liberal exemplar mentioned...
SCHLEIRMACHER
(Schleiermacher, my correction)
The best known man of this kind is Friedrich Schleirmacher. He was a German theologian, born in 1768. His father was a Reformed pastor and he studied at a Moravian university. This is a good combination! He learned Calvinism at home and got the disciplines of prayer and devotional reading in school. With his great learning, sincerity, and personality, he might have become a Giant of the Faith.
But he didn't. He became a Giant of Unbelief.
He accepted the doctrines of the Enlightenment and looked for a way of integrating them into the Christian Faith. He found one. He said the scholarship of his day was true, but it did not affect Christianity in the least because Christianity is not about objective truth, but about devotional feelings. He tried to rebuild the Faith on the foundation of feelings.
From my PhD: Theodicy and Practical Theology (UWTSD, 2010)
Schleiermacher’s approach redefines Christian religion as a unique element of human experience, not located in the intellectual and moral aspects of persons as these produce indirect knowledge concerning God only. God is instead experienced through feeling. Schleiermacher (1821)(1928)(1976: 212-213). The infinite God is experienced through human experience with the finite world. Schleiermacher (1821)(1928)(1976: 212-213). Not primarily from rational and doctrinal concepts.
Therefore, Schleiermacher, unlike many traditional and Reformed approaches with the omnipotence of God is not primarily concerned with a dogma and doctrine concerning the omnipotence of God, but is instead focused on how God is experienced by persons, and this would include God’s attribute of omnipotence. I personally still favour a doctrinal approach.
Phillips states in the sermon...
But, setting that aside, I want to show you their technique. It was not right, but it was extremely clever and highly effective. What the old Liberals mostly did was to downplay doctrine. They didn't come out and deny it-most of the time-but they said it wasn't important or that unity, service, and love are more important than doctrine.
---
Agreed. This still goes on today within many liberal denominations and churches.
BROWN, C. (1996) The Enlightenment, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.
PAILIN, D.A. (1999) Enlightenment, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press Limited.
