The above is the latest video he has put out, defending his philosophical intrusion into Christian theology! So let us examine more closely what he has said. The full transcript of the video begins as follows:
“I think that it is fine if one wants to just simply rest content with the teachings of scripture, but then you had better not say anything that would go beyond that, as preachers constantly do from the pulpit, when they begin to tell us about God’s eternity, or God’s knowledge, or the Trinity, or the Atonement, and so forth. It is very very hard I think to limit oneself to just biblical statements about Christian doctrine.”
I am not sure what he is getting at here. To my knowledge Christian preachers as a general rule stick to the Bible in expressing their theological beliefs, statements, and doctrines. They may apply reason and logic while doing so; but that is not the same as being “philosophical”. So he needs to provide some examples to make his meaning clear. He then continues as follows:
“And a further deficiency in that approach is that although you may be able to rest content with this sort of mere biblical doctrine, it will do nothing to defend Christianity and Christian doctrine against the attacks of its critics, those who claim that the biblical doctrine of the Atonement is incoherent, or that the Incarnation of Christ is a self-contradiction, or that the Trinity is logically impossible, or that it is impossible that God be both active in time and yet timeless. So you are going to leave yourself utterly, utterly vulnerable to the attacks of secularists by simply refusing to deal with these sorts of questions.”
Again, he needs to provide more detailed or precise examples. He has provided one such example, that “it is impossible that God be both active in time and yet timeless,” which is an easy objection to answer: The fact that God exists outside of time does not mean that he therefore cannot interact with time, or with creatures existing in time. The fact that I exist outside of a swimming pool, does not mean that I cannot dive into the pool, and interact with the fishes that are in the pool. He first needs to provide an explanation why he thinks that question is applicable or relevant. So that is not a very good example. Another issue with that statement is that it is not the job of theology, scripture, or true religion to answer every mystery that is out there:
Deuteronomy 29:
29 The secret things belong unto the Lord our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law.
Their job is to provide us with enough information about God, his character and attributes, his laws, his commandments, and his dealings with man, to enable us to believe in him, trust him, exercise faith in him and in his promises, repent of our sins, keep his commandments, and be saved. It is not a requirement of true religion to give an answer to every skeptical question that a secularist or unbeliever might want to throw at it. Religion is ultimately a matter of faith. At some point you have to believe something. That is the characteristic of true religion. “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved” (Mark 16:16). It is not a requirement to answer every skeptical question that an unbeliever might want to throw at it. He then continues as follows:
“Now in dealing with them, I would want to emphasize, what you would be doing is not being dogmatic about these. What you would do is say, here is a plausible model of the Trinity, or here is a plausible understanding of the Incarnation that could well be true. Is it in fact the truth? I don’t know; God knows.”
Several issues with that. Firstly, true religion declares truth. It is all about truth. It is not about guesswork. It may be a truth that needs to be believed; but nevertheless, it declares truth. Secondly, it is not the purpose of true religion to reveal every mystery that is out there. Thirdly he has given two examples: the Trinity and the Incarnation, each of which requires a detailed discussion. First, the Trinitarian theology of modern Christendom (three Persons in one God) is not biblical. The Bible teaches that there is such a thing as the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; but it does not attempt to describe how they are related to, or connected with each other. That is the innovation of modern day theologians. I am happy to rest with the limited explanation that scripture provides, and leave it at that—unless God decides to reveal more detailed information about it than he has. The same applies to the doctrine of the Incarnation. I am satisfied with the belief that Jesus was divine, he was God, who became man. I don’t need to know the mystery of how it happened to believe and know that that is a true statement and a fact. As it turns out, however, modern LDS scripture does indeed provide additional insight into all of those topics; but that is a separate issue from the conversation that he is now having. Then he continues:
“But this shows that it is not incoherent; it is not logically impossible. There is a plausible, biblically faithful model for these doctrines. And so it will be in a spirit of humility, not dogmatism, that one will offer possible answers to these difficult questions.”
Sure, but what has “philosophy” got to do with any of this? He is now being biblical, which is fair enough. How does “philosophy” help elucidate Christian theology—apart from perhaps helping us think more critically, logically, and analytically? A theologian still needs to be able to think critically and analytically to be a good theologian; and if a study of history, philosophy, literature, science, logic, mathematics etc. helps him do that, I am all for it. But that is a different thing from assuming that philosophy itself can actually provide answers to difficult theological questions that scripture doesn’t provide. The source of Christian theology is ultimately scripture, the revealed word of God, and nothing else.
No comments:
Post a Comment