Monday, May 20, 2013

Ariminians and Presuppositional Apologetics

     I recently came across this somewhat old video of William Lane Craig (with no white hair and full beard!) in which he talks about presuppositionalism, atheism, and apologetics. I have always been somewhat perplexed (well, not really) as to why Arminians don't use presuppositional apologetics. Video is below.

     It really does come down to Dr. Craig being a consistent Arminian and somehow thinking that if enough "evidence" (physical, or philosophical) is given, then the non-Christian will somehow become convinced. A rather man-centered apologetic for a man-centered theology.

     When I first was watching the video, I thought that he would address presuppositionalism as a method but he never actually does. He talks about atheistic presuppositions, but never delves any deeper. The purpose of the video was to answer this question: "What role does one's philosophical assumptions play in doing historical research, particularly related to the resurrection of Jesus?" Now, to be fair, Dr Craig wasn't asked to address the issue of presuppositionalism directly, only the narrower question of how one's presuppositions affect how one does historical research for the NT. But what he says is a reflection of his apologetic method and his Arminian theology. 

     Here are some key statements within the video, and my interactions:
     "I think that one's philosophical presuppositions will be an important guide in doing historical work with respect to the NT narratives because these narratives overtly present a supernatural Jesus.... and if you come to these narratives with a presupposition of .... naturalism... that is to say, that as a historian, you will not allow supernatural causes to enter the picture, then these events will be ruled out of court, in advance regardless of the evidence. 
     I think that this is fundamentally the problem with the methodology employed by the infamous Jesus seminar..... the first pillar of scholarly wisdom (as they put it) is scientific naturalism. 
     .... anything that had supernatural aspects to it was by definition relegated to myth rather than history, now this is not a matter of argument, it's not a matter of evidence. This is simply a matter of definition... The supernatural is defined as being in the category of mythical, not historical. And if you begin with those sorts of presuppositions then of course the resurrection will be evaluated as un-historical because you have defined it as un-historical. 
     .... they (Jesus seminar) think of the risen of Christ as not a historical individual and this is done so not on the basis of evidence but on the basis of presuppositions. 
     .... the degree to which one will be ready to trust these documents (gospels) depends more upon one's openness to a supernatural worldview than it does upon their literary and historical qualities. So I think this is absolutely crucial and ... philosophically, I see no reason to adopt such a philosophical naturalism. 
    It seems to me that only an atheist could be justified in saying that miracles are impossible because unless you have some proof of atheism, you have to be open to the possibility that God exists, and if that is even possible, then it is possible that He's acted in history. So in the absence of any proof for atheism, which I don't think anyone has, we have to be open to the possibility of the supernatural and let the evidence speak for itself."
------------------------------

WLC: "I think that one's philosophical presuppositions will be an important guide in doing historical work with respect to the NT narratives because these narratives overtly present a supernatural Jesus.... and if you come to these narratives with a presupposition of .... naturalism... that is to say, that as a historian, you will not allow supernatural causes to enter the picture, then these events will be ruled out of court, in advance regardless of the evidence."

CSL: In the beginning Dr. Craig rightly recognizes that one's presupposition of naturalism, by definition, will eliminate anything inherently supernatural. I appreciate that he made it very clear that this would happen regardless of any evidence that "proves" otherwise.

WLC: "I think that this is fundamentally the problem with the methodology employed by the infamous Jesus seminar..... the first pillar of scholarly wisdom (as they put it) is scientific naturalism."
CSL: Yes.. I agree.

WLC: " .... anything that had supernatural aspects to it was by definition relegated to myth rather than history, now this is not a matter of argument, it's not a matter of evidence. This is simply a matter of definition... The supernatural is defined as being in the category of mythical, not historical. And if you begin with those sorts of presuppositions then of course the resurrection will be evaluated as un-historical because you have defined it as un-historical."
CSL: Here is where I run into problems with Dr. Craig's formulations. I agree with him when he says that (due to the naturalistic presuppositions) that anything supernatural is by definition relegated to myth rather than history.. He goes on to say that the issue behind their unbelief in supernatural is simply a "matter of definition."
     It is true that there is a matter of definition involved in this issue. However, the problem is much deeper than mere definitions or simply understanding that this is a myth vs. history problem. It is much deeper than simply defining super-naturalism in the correct way.
     The real problem involves consistently understanding that the naturalist worldview that it will want to purposely deny anything supernatural. This absolute denial is manifested by defining supernaturalism as a myth. In other words, the presupposition of naturalism isn't only involving wrongly defined terms, but an intentional and willful disregard for supernatural things. This is a little bit more fleshed out in my discussions on Rom 1 below.

WLC: " .... they (Jesus seminar) think of the risen of Christ as not a historical individual and this is done so not on the basis of evidence but on the basis of presuppositions. "
CSL: Dr Craig makes an interesting statement here, and this statement presupposes that the problem of unbelief by the Jesus seminar can be solved simply by somehow convincing the Jesus seminar that they need to simply look at the evidence and that this will somehow overcome their presuppositions.
     The problem with this kind of thinking is that how one understands the evidence presented to him is an indication of what his worldview is, not that they (worldview and interpretation of the evidence) are two separate things. 

WLC: ".... the degree to which one will be ready to trust these documents (gospels) depends more upon one's openness to a supernatural worldview than it does upon their literary and historical qualities. So I think this is absolutely crucial and ... philosophically, I see no reason to adopt such a philosophical naturalism."
CSL: This is by far one of the weakest points in Dr Craig's mini-lecture. I am glad that he recognizes that people's unwillingness to trust the historical reliability of the gospels (and by extension, unwillingness to believe) is an issue regarding worldviews and presuppositions.
However, he then incredibly just dismisses this issue of worldviews (and therefore the presuppositions that generate those worldviews) and simply says that he finds no reason to believe in naturalism.
What is going on here? Why such a casual dismissal? This is implicitly answered in the very last part below.

WLC: "It seems to me that only an atheist could be justified in saying that miracles are impossible because unless you have some proof of atheism, you have to be open to the possibility that God exists, and if that is even possible, then it is possible that He's acted in history. 
 CSL: It seems that he is contradicting himself here. This first sentence doesn't make any sense at all. Atheists will never have any proof of their atheism. Therefore, they can never be justified in saying that miracles are impossible. I think that he had a "brain fart" in that first sentence.


WLC: So in the absence of any proof for atheism, which I don't think anyone has, we have to be open to the possibility of the supernatural and let the evidence speak for itself."
CSL: Yes, while atheists don't have any actual proof of their atheism, but even with the atheist's own alleged proof of his atheism, that "proof" isn't the reason that he is an atheist. The issue is the total depravity in his heart and mind have been completely corrupted due to the sin nature that he inherited from Adam. And from that sin nature, his worldview is therefore corrupted. 
     Even if the atheist acknowledges that he has no proof of his atheism, he will never, on his own volition, be open to the supernatural, and no amount of evidence will convince him otherwise. 
Dr Craig's assumption is that once we expose to an atheist that he as no proof for his atheism, it isn't that much of a leap to getting him ***on his own volition*** to be open to the possibility of the supernatural. This line of thinking denies the reality of total depravity in man's heart. And this is not surprising given the fact that Dr Craig is a staunch Arminian. 
     Another big picture issue is the troubling remarks that he makes regarding that one must be open to the possibility that God exists. 
     It is a FACT and a revealed TRUTH that the Triune God exists, and that the atheist does not acknowledge this (or more precisely, suppresses that innate knowledge and revelation, Rom. 1) is irrelevant to how we should be preaching the revealed truth of the Bible. It is not that it is possible that God acted in history, or that He does exist, it is an inviolable certainty that He actually did act and that He does exist. 
     And for one to start with the presupposition that He may or may not exist (as does all Arminian apologetics), this is to deny how the Bible starts with the fact that God exists and this then places the non-believer in the judge's seat to examine the "evidence" and make a determination himself as to whether God exists or not. 
     How is allowing a non-Christian the opportunity to "decide" whether or not the evidence is convincing being honoring to God as the true judge over all? 

The problems that were present in Dr Craig's mini-lecture really boils down to several other key things:
     1)While he is keenly aware of the atheist's presuppositions, in this lecture specifically, and as a reflection of his larger apologetical methodology, he never deals with those presuppositions. It seems amazing to me that in this very short lecture, his best argument against the atheist presuppositions is simply to convince the unbeliever to be open to the possibility of the supernatural by attempting to get him to seem more "evidence" and that will somehow win over the atheist.

     From a biblical and apologetical standpoint, the unbeliever already does knows that God exists. Romans 1 tells us that all men have clearly been shown who God is: "For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse" God has been clearly seen, and all men are without excuse. There is no need to provide any evidence to the natural man. The task then becomes to show the natural man that he already does believe in God and that it is only through his belief in God can he think, assign meaning and logic and order to anything. At that point, it is understood that his understanding that God exists has been suppressed for so long. "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness"

     2) With Rom 1 in mind, again, there is no need to provide the unbeliever with more evidence. And in fact, the motive behind throwing evidence upon evidence to the unbeliever is to attempt to prove to him that God exists. Why would God need to prove to any man that He exists, esp. in light of Rom 1? And esp. in light of the fact that attempting to "prove" to someone that God exists means that you are attempting to "vindicate" God through that man. Now, that man becomes the judge and not God. 
It is this natural man that needs to submit to the Lord by our showing him that he cannot exist at all without God being presupposed. The intent behind this is to show that he must submit to the Lord Jesus Christ because if he doesn't, his life is one big disobedient and inconsistent, contradictory and meaningless existence.   

     3) Finally, since Dr. Craig's approach never deals with the core foundational presuppositions of natural man because he never addresses them either in this video or in his apologetic in general, it is only through the methodology of presuppositional apologetics that the natural man can ever be confronted with his utter defiance of God, and his utter inconsistency of wanting to borrow from the Christian worldview in order to say that God does not exist. 

 

9 comments:

  1. To be fair to evidentialists and classical apologetics...not all evidentialists are arminians. Have you read C.S. Lewis' Miracles? Fantastic (perhaps one of the best) in exposing presupposition of naturalism, but like WLC, falls short in other ways.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Chang,
    Thanks.. As I read your comment, I immediately thought of RC Sproul.
    I have read part of "Miracles" years ago. I have to pick it back up again.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "From a biblical and apologetical standpoint, the unbeliever already does knows that God exists. Romans 1 tells us that all men have clearly been shown who God is: "For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse" God has been clearly seen, and all men are without excuse"
    Loaded statement so therefore it automatically falls, and i don't know that god exist and i have not clearly seen invisible attributes, Paul was just clever enough to put that into his writing so that his acolytes can insult people who disagree with him with rude insults

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Waka,

      Thanks for the message.. I like talking about these kinds of things, so I appreciate your contribution.

      In order to help this along:
      What is your standard for how you would know whether what Paul said is true or not?

      Delete
    2. "What is your standard for how you would know whether what Paul said is true or not?"
      i take a look at the context, education level, and various factors that pertain to why the person might have said such a things,and for Paul to say that people who say they dont believe in God because they are so wicked that they "supress the truth" is just so that his acolytes in the future can insult non-Christians claiming that they are dishonest about their postion

      Delete
    3. Waka,
      Thanks.

      Based on what you said, it seems that the reason that you don't believe what Paul said in Rom 1 is that his "acolytes in the future can insult non-Christians claiming that they are dishonest about their position."

      1) When you say that you are using "context, education level and various factors", these items you described are either not valid as a standard for determining whether a particular inference is valid or you are being entirely unclear.
      a) What "context" are you using? (vague)

      b) How is education level ever a proper standard that would determine the truthfulness of a statement?
      (fallacious appeal to authority)

      c) What exactly is "various factors"? (vague)

      2) Also, it is fallacious reasoning to say that a statement is false because of the way in which someone might use that statement.

      Among the other informal fallacies that you commit in your reasoning, the immediate one that comes to mind is a red herring:
      Your conclusion that Paul's statements in Romans is false does not logically follow from the premises that his followers use his statements to insult non-Christians.

      If you prefer, you can put your inference in a syllogism with proper premises to form a conclusion. This would be the most efficient way to prove to me the soundness and validity of your conclusion.

      3) Other than simply asserting it, what evidence do you have that Paul's followers actually used this to "insult" non-Christians?

      These questions are good for a start. I look forward to your response.

      Delete
    4. "context, education level and various factors"
      perhaps i should have been more clear-i look at the historical context this message was written in, who it was written by and who it was written for.Also i forgot to mention, how much that message pertains to reality, also how can you see an invisible attribute?
      " Other than simply asserting it, what evidence do you have that Paul's followers actually used this to "insult" non-Christians?"
      Sye Ten Bruggengate, Tony Miano,Ray Comfort

      Delete
  4. Waka,
    Thanks.. I will respond to your first response later. That will take a little bit of time.

    But, for your second question, I wanted to provide some context for my answer to your question on whether I am a dominionist or not.

    The short answer is yes.
    However, I want to be clear to you on what I mean by this and what I dont mean by this.

    I would normally say that I am a "theonomist" because this term seems to imply a little bit different focus as opposed to "dominionist." Maybe it doesnt seem that different to many people, but that is my preference.

    I say this because my focus is on adhering to God's law as fulfilled through Christ. Through adherence to God's law because of my love for Christ, I now have the motivation and desire to serve the Lord through various commissions of thought, speech and deed.

    And I also recognize that all (non-Christians and Christian) are under ONE epistemologically-consistent moral standard, as revealed to Christians in a special way through the Word, and yet it is implanted in all of our hearts (Christian and non-Christian) as also revealed and told to us in the Bible (Rom 2).

    This leaves non-Christians without any excuse for the right standard of morality and about who God is, regardless of whether they have the Bible or not.. (romans 1).

    With this standard, I am called to live out my faith as salt and light to this world, in which I perform various acts of service to lovingly be in accord with the law of God.. whether that be in my studies, how I interact with my family, my church community, and how I vote and how I interact in the "political" and legislative process as a citizen.

    Because of that one epistemologically consistent standard for all, I also recognize that culture is never "neutral".. and that it should be recognized that it is the church's mission and also the individual Christian's mission to spread the gospel, love our neighbor, and inform them about God's love through Christ and the loving commands that he gives to us to follow him.

    Without Christ, the law condemns. With Christ, the law sanctifies. Yet, in either case, the law is still the epistemologically consistent standard that all are required to obey.

    Christ's command for us to be salt and light has no meaning if we are not attempting to bring about godly morality as reflected in his law. This is ***closely*** coupled with proclamation of the how the gospel saves from the condemnation of that godly law.

    Through this preaching of both law and gospel, men and women will become saved and through the renewing of their hearts and minds, their actions in culture and politics etc.. will change.. This will gradually "transform" society..

    However, regardless of whether this world becomes Christianized in the end, Christ still has dominion.. this should never be forgotten... This is why those who disobey and spurn his commands and the gospel are still held accountable when they die.

    But, we Christians do well to obey Christ's command to be salt and light in the world, and this is why it is important to pass godly laws and generate law abiding culture so that the path and environment for gospel proclamation is aided and not hindered.

    Quick example:
    If one has absolutely no concept that homosexuality is wrong, he will most likely (but not necessarily always) greatly struggle over this concept before becoming a Christian, or this may even be the temporal factor that prevents him from being a Christian...

    If one already has a concept that this is wrong, the "path" for him to become a Christian (temporally speaking) is more clear..

    This is simply an example, but I hope that you can see the purpose that we as Christians are to try to pass godly laws and influence the culture towards a more law-abiding direction.

    Does this help with your question about my dominionist status?

    ReplyDelete