withallyourmind.net

Although I no longer consider myself a Pentecostal, I have spent about half of my life belonging to Pentecostal churches and, despite the problems I have with several areas of Pentecostal theology, I think there is much that non-charismatic evangelicals can learn from their Pentecostal brothers in Christ. I especially value the fervor for missions and evangelism and the desire to live a life completely in submission to God that I see in many of my Pentecostal friends. One thing, though, that has always bothered me about Pentecostalism is its almost universal (at least in my experience) lack of emphasis on systematic theology and the life of the mind in general. I was very pleased, therefore, when I came across this interview from Christianity Today. The interview is with Rick Nanez, an Assemblies of God minister and missionary to Ecuador, who wrote the book Full Gospel, Fractured Minds?. In the interview, he critiques the prevailing anti-intellectualism and is honest about why Pentecostalism is especially vulnerable to it, although it is definitely a problem for much of today’s Church.

This man has my whole-hearted support, appreciation, and prayers for his work. We all stand to benefit from the increase of more logical and biblical ways of thinking.

(HT: The Christian Mind)

Having been tenant long to a rich Lord,
Not thriving, I resolved to be bold,
And make a suit unto him, to afford
A new small-rented lease, and cancel th’ old.

In heaven at his manor I him sought:
They told me there, that he was lately gone
About some land, which he had dearly bought
Long since on earth, to take possession.

I straight returned, and knowing his great birth,
Sought him accordingly in great resorts;
In cities, theatres, gardens, parks, and courts:
At length a heard a ragged noise and mirth

Of thieves and murderers: there I him espied,
Who straight, Your suit is granted, said, and died.

I finished listening to a lecture today by Richard Neuhaus, editor of the highly reccomended magazine First Things, called Who We Are: A Theological Perspective, which he delivered at the University of Kentucky last year. The lecture itself was good, but I just wanted to mention two things he said that really struck me and made me think a little.

The first was concerning the way the Constitution should be interpreted, especially regarding the relationship between church and state, which is, of course, a pretty controversial issue these days. He argued that the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution cannot be separated and that the Declaration is the “motivational [and] convictional foundation of the American experiment,” whereas the Constitution is the “procedural and functional document.” For this reason, the rules set out in the Constitution can only be fully and properly understood by interpreting them through principles upon which the founding fathers declared America a nation. This seems to make a lot of sense to me. (Apparently, this was Abraham Lincoln’s view as well).

The second flowed from this point and was a thought experiment about the currently popular way of interpreting the Constitution’s First Amendment that “would be humorous if it weren’t so sad.” He said to picture a young girl in a public school whose teacher is reading aloud the words of the Declaration of Independence: ” We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…” Imagine now that the young girl raises her hand and asks “Teacher…is this true?” Now reflect on the absurdity that according to the prevalent way of interpreting the Constitution (which was based on these principles) in the country that became a nation through the document that contains these words, it would be illegal for the teacher to say an unqualified yes.

[Disclaimer: My father does not share all of my reformed convictions so obviously any conclusions arrived at in this post are only my own. Nevertheless, I put this forward for the sake of the advance of rational discussion on both sides of the theological divide.]

John DePoe had an interesting post the other day on doxastic voluntarism, “the position that a person can willfully choose his beliefs, despite what the evidence, arguments, and other justifying reasons indicate.” I agree with him that this position is definitely false in cases such as those where we have basic beliefs (such as those arising from our senses). However, I also think that it is plausible that something like this may be true in certain circumstances. I’m not sure what I think about the example he gives, but it seems to me that at least in cases where the evidence is roughly equal for some proposition being true or false, a person could willfully choose whichever option he wished to believe.

The main reason I bring this up though is his reason for claiming that Christians should believe in some sort of doxastic voluntarism, namely, that “Christians believe there are moral consequences that follow from one’s beliefs about the existence of God, the nature of Jesus, etc. If we have no control over these type of beliefs, it seems there is no way to hold someone morally responsible for holding these beliefs.” I, too, believe that one’s religous beliefs are morally significant, and this is leads me to a simple argument for Calvinism that I’ve been thinking over recently, in the form of reductio ad absurdum. It’s a common Calvinist complaint, but I’ve never seen it in argument form.

Here is the argument in outline form, with a brief defense of the premises to follow:
   (1) Suppose, for the sake of argument, that the typical Arminian doctrine of prevenient grace is true.
   (2) Then the difference between a person who is saved and a person who is unsaved lies entirely in their differing beliefs about Jesus.
   (3) But a person’s beliefs about Jesus are morally significant.
   (4) This means a person is saved in virtue of their having performed a particular morally significant action (namely, willing to believe in Jesus in the necessary way).
   (5) But the Bible says that a person is not saved because of any morally significant action they perform.
   (6) Therefore, the typical Arminian doctrine of prevenient grace is false.

Defense of the premises:
(1) This is the assumption for the reductio from whence we will derive a contradiction. What I mean by prevenient grace is the belief flowing from the complete universality of the atonement that Jesus died for all men equally and then shed on all men his prevenient grace which in essence redeems their free will so that each person has all that is required in order to freely put their faith in Christ and thereby be saved. I do not intend to misrepresent here, and so far as I can tell, this is what prevenient grace entails.
(2) This premise seems to follow from the idea of prevenient grace as described above. If Christ’s atonement accomplished the forgiveness of sins equally for all men and each is given equal opportunity to freely believe on that atonement, then the difference between the saved and the unsaved is only in whether they have freely chosen to believe or not.
(3) This is what was implied in the earlier discussion of doxastic voluntarism, and it seems to fit with our moral intuitions. What could be a greater sin than pridefully rejecting the Son of God and the atonement he lovingly offers? Surely having faith is a virtue and lack of it is a vice.
(4) This follows straightforwardly from (2) and (3).
(5) This is the negation of (4), and it is derived from the straightforward reading of texts such as Eph. 2:8-9, which says that we are saved “not as a result of works,” and Titus 3:5-7, which says that God saved us “not on the basis of deeds which we have done.”
(6) This is the conclusion of the argument, the negation of the first premise on account of the contradictions which arose through its assumption.

Well…that’s the argument. I’m sure it isn’t perfect, but it looks valid and seems sound to me, although I can see certain things some would object to. I suppose looking at it now that it is more of an argument against Arminianism than for Calvinism, but I was thinking that with prevenient grace out the window some sort of Calvinist grace would fit in. (I don’t like the term irresistible because of its connotations…especially since I am a libertarian with regards to free will). If our salvation isn’t going to be based decisively on some morally significant action of our own, and having faith is a morally significant action, then it seems to me that some sort of more limited atonement will have to be posited. Then the deciding factor will not be in the will of the man, but in the extent of the atonement for the man. I don’t have time to go into all this now…but hopefully I’ll get around to spelling out my views someday (supposing I still have the same views by then ;-)).

Anyway, I’d like to know what some of you out there think about the argument. It is meant to be taken as a rational argument and it is my hope that it can be read as such in spite of the way rationality seems to go out the window whenever the Calvinist/Arminian debate is brought up.

Ian Barbour, in his book Religion in an Age of Science, speaks of ways of relating science and religion. He groups these interrelations into four different views: Conflict, Independence, Dialogue, and Integration. While not necessarily agreeing with all of Barbour’s conclusions, he does provide much to think about. Exploring the Conflict view of Science and Religion, he places Scientific Materialism and Biblical Literalism at opposite ends of the spectrum, and presents them as making rival literal statements about the same domain. One must choose the one and reject the other. I agree with Barbour that this view is not an accurate representation of the relationship between science and religion

Barbour also states that Scientific Materialism entails a misuse of science. It starts from science, but ends by making broad philosophical claims. Scientific materialism makes two assertions: 1. The scientific method is the only reliable path to knowledge (An epistemological claim) 2. Matter is the fundamental reality in the universe (A metaphysicla claim). Logical positivism, early in the 20th century, held that the only meaningful statements are empirical propositions verifiable by sense data. Statements of ethics, metaphysics, and religion are neither true nor false, they are meaningless pseudo-statements. Scientific materialists have continued in this tradition.

Barbour points to Carl Sagan as one of those who misuses science in this manner. One example of his philosophical commentary presented as science is:

The Cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be.

Jacques Monod, in Chance and Necessity, claims that biology has proved there is no purpose in nature.

Man knows at last that he is alone in the universe’s unfeeling immensity, out of which he emerged only by chance. Chance alone is the source of all novelty, all creation, in the biosphere…Anything can be reduced to simple, obvious, mechanical interactions. The cell is a machine. The animal is a machine. Man is a machine.

Barbour sums up this misuse of science in this way:

Particular scientific concepts have been extended and extrapolated beyond thier scientific use; they have been inflated into comprehensive naturalistic philosophies. Scientific concepts and theories have been taken to provide an exhaustive description of reality, and the abstractive and selective character of science has been ignored. The philosopher Alred North Whitehead calls this “the fallacy of misplaced concreteness.” It can also be described as “making a metaphysics out of a method.”

I think Barbour has done a nice job of summarizing the problem of science claiming more than it should. Science is valuable and has done much to make the world better. However, there are many things which science cannot tell us.

Part hymn, part cosmological argument:

The spacious firmament on high,
with all the blue ethereal sky,
and spangled heavens, a shining frame,
their great Original proclaim.
The unwearied sun from day to day
does his Creator’s power display;
and publishes to every land
the work of an almighty hand.

Soon as the evening shades prevail,
the moon takes up the wondrous tale,
and nightly to the listening earth
repeats the story of her birth:
whilst all the stars that round her burn,
and all the planets in their turn,
confirm the tidings, as they roll
and spread the truth from pole to pole.

What though in solemn silence all
move round the dark terrestrial ball?
What though no real voice nor sound
amid their radiant orbs be found?
In reason’s ear they all rejoice,
and utter forth a glorious voice;
for ever singing as they shine,
“The hand that made us is divine.”

I have been conversing with several other folks about the best approach to share the truth of Christ with the world. The role of natural law and philosophy has surfaced repeatedly. There is one person who believes that it is wrong, or at least ineffective, for a believer to appeal to natural law or other philosophical arguments in support of the fundamentals of the Christian doctrine and worldview. His motto is “Sola Scriptura”!

“Sola Scriptura” (Latin: By Scripture Alone) is a famous latin phrase which was an important slogan of the Protestant Reformation of the 16th century. Adherents to this slogan (which would probably include most of the evangelical world) believe that it is scripture alone which is the inerrant rule for Christian faith and morals. This belief reversed the entrenched authority of the Catholic church to interpret scripture for the believer. The traditions of the Church were not to be the ultimate authority, but the individual believer was to look to scripture alone as a guide to his faith. It did not, however, reject all church tradition as being worthless to a Christian. Instead of church tradition interpreting scripture, scripture was to interpret tradition. In the words of John Wesley, “The Church is to be judged by the Scriptures, not the Scriptures by the Church.”

This brings me to my point. Sola Scriptura does not imply a rejection of reason, natural law, or philosophy. How does the individual interpret scripture? He must do so by use of his reason! Reason is not in conflict with scripture, but is God’s gift to humanity to understand and properly relate to Him. J. P. Moreland, in his influential book, Love Your God With All Your Mind, made this statement:

The Christian mind is committed to seeking and finding the truth even if that truth is not what one wanted to hear. The Christian seeks to know and do the truth. In fact, in a certain sense the believer’s commitment to the truth is even more basic than his or her dedication to the Christian faith in general or some doctrinal position in particular. If one came to believe that Christianity or some doctrinal belief were false, then one ought to give up the belief in question.

Proper reasoning is how we come to recognize truth from error. Now, the Scripture tells us much that we could not know otherwise, for example, that God was manifest in flesh in order to make a substitutionary sacrifice for those who believe, or that we are saved by grace through faith and not by works. We need the Bible, and we need to understand that it is the ultimate authority regarding our lives and faith. But there is much truth we can know without ever having read scripture by simply using the reason God has given us. That same reason also enables us to interpret scripture correctly. God’s general revelation and his special revelation (scripture) are not in conflict. Reason and scripture both point us to God’s wonderful truth.

The Euthyphro dilemma has been mentioned a few times already on this blog, but I’ll summarize it once more for those who don’t remember. The basic question is this: Are morally good acts commanded by God because they are good, or are they good because they are commanded by God? It is a dilemma because neither option looks very attractive to the theist. If God commands acts because they are already good, then morality is something that exists independently from God to which even he is accountable. If they are good because God commands them, then they seem arbitrary, and he could, for example, command the torturing of children for fun and it would become good. (Feel free to substitute “willed by” for “commanded by” if you prefer…the same problem remains).
The typical Christian response, although usually claiming to be a third route, is to say that good acts are good because they are rooted in God’s will, but that this isn’t bad or arbitrary because God’s benevolent nature is such that he would not command anything like the torturing of children for fun. This is a form of divine command theory, or theological voluntarism. On this view, a moral duty just is something that is commanded or willed by God. When we use the word “right,” we are referring to “a thing that is (or would be) commanded by a good God.” (For more detail on this, see R.M. Adams - A New Divine Command Theory).
This is about the only response that you will see given by evangelical theologians and philosophers, but my eyes were opened the other day to the alternative approach, one advocated by my teacher David McNaughton, and Richard Swinburne. On this view, there are a few necessary and a priori knowable moral truths, such as ‘cruelty is wrong’ and ‘gratitude is due to benefactors’, to which even God is bound, much the way he is bound by mathematical and logical truths. He therefore cannot make it true that the torturing of children for fun is right (since it is cruel) anymore than he can make it true that 2+2=5 or create a square circle. On this view, moral duties such as not being cruel or showing gratitude are good in and of themselves, necessarily. On the other hand, some of the other things that are commanded by God, such as the dietary laws of the Old Testament, or duties such as tithing, are not moral duties in and of themselves, but they are moral duties for us because God has commanded them and we stand to him in the relationship of someone who receives blessings to a benefactor and we therefore have a moral duty to follow his commands. This is similar to the father who asks something of his son. What the father asks the son to do may not be a moral duty in itself, but it is a duty for the son to show gratitude and respect to his father by doing things he asks (assuming of course that the father has been a good father in general and is not asking for something that contradicts another moral duty the son is bound to…for a helpful discussion of these sorts of situations, see Ross’ distinction between prima facie duties and duties proper in the excerpt What Makes Right Acts Right?)
As I said, I am new to this view so I may have not expressed it very clearly, but hopefully you can get the general idea. This is definitely an area I want to do more serious thinking about, and I welcome any comments.

I’ve just completed reading Allan Bloom’s The Closing of the American Mind. This best seller was originally published in 1987. Allan Bloom is not a Christian, nor does he appeal to any uniquely Christian arguments. However, he persuasively paints a picture of American society (the American university, in particular) as a society with closed minds.

As one makes his way through the book, one realizes that the American mind is not closed because it claims to have the truth and will not consider other possibilities or alternative opinions. The American mind is closed because it considers all beliefs to be equally valid and lacks the discriminatory effort to decide if one belief is better than another. The only absolute in American culture is the absoluteness of freedom to believe what one wishes to believe. Bloom states:

Openness used to be the virtue that permitted us to seek the good by using reason. It now means accepting everything and denying reason’s power. The unrestrained and thoughtless pursuit of openness…has rendered openness meaningless.

He further claims that there are two kinds of openness; the openness of indifference, and the openness that “invites us to the quest for knowledge and certitude”. Of all people, Christian’s should manifest that openness which searches for knowledge and certitude. The moral relativism of our day has closed the minds of many to even acknowledge that there is a truth. This book by Bloom attempts to open those closed minds by asserting that we must examine competing claims and see whether one is more correct than the other. That is one of the objectives of this web site, to help weigh the claims of competing world views and show that the Christian world view best makes sense of the world in which we live.

In an earlier post, where I gave a modal argument for substance dualism, I mentioned (very) briefly the assumption it makes that conceivability is a good guide to possibility, and the controversy surrounding this assumption. I didn’t mention it then, but there is an entire book of articles dedicated to this topic. I probably won’t get around to reading it any time soon, but John DePoe at Fides Quarens Intellectum is reading it now and wrote an informative post summarizing the introduction. If you have any interest in this topic, I’d check it out. Hopefully he’ll make this into a series.