Dr Greg Bahnsen - Philosophy of Christianity: Introduction (Part 1)

Our Lord and our God. We pray this day that you might enlighten our minds by your spirit and make us faithful to the word of truth which you have given us in the Scriptures. We pray that you would do these things, that we might be able to answer those difficult questions that confront us in philosophy. Indeed, that we might understand our Christian faith better and especially as it stands over against the options of the world. And we pray in all of this you would give us an appreciation of the good gifts that you have granted to us by your grace in saving us, calling us to yourself, enlightening our minds, giving us indeed a word of truth by which to live. We thank you, Father, that you've done these things for us. And we pray that you would make us faithful through this hour to you. For it's in Jesus name that we ask these things. Amen. I'm going to begin by passing around a blank sheet of paper on which I understand you're to put your name so I'll understand who is in this class and as well a class syllabus. Anybody who is taking the class for credit and auditors. You're welcome to take them. I think there should be plenty. And while those are going around, let me just give you a couple of elementary matters of introduction. By this time I'm sure you're aware I'm Dr. Greg Bonson and this course is on the philosophy of Christianity. I think the number is what, 3, 353. So if anybody's in the wrong room, I suppose this is the best time to make the adjustment. Since I don't have an office here at the seminary while I'm visiting, I thought it might be good to make it easy for you to contact me if you need to do so for any reason. And I will try to make it my habit on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays to be in the library upstairs studying between 12:45 and 1:15. And so if you need me, you can contact me by coming upstairs and finding me in the library on those three days, quasi office hours, if you will, or if that's impossible, or if at some other time you need to reach me not during those times, there's a phone number where you can reach me here in town. Let me say just a word or two while this was still going around about myself and my background. I was converted, became a Christian shortly before I went into junior high school as a child and went to college after a while at Westmont College in Santa Barbara where I majored in philosophy and then went on to Westminster Theological Seminary where I took a double degree, an M. Dib Degree and then a THM in systematic theology, writing my dissertation in Socio Political ethics. And after that I went on to the University of Southern California, of whose football team we are all justly proud. Can you say that in the state of Ohio and get away with it quietly? We are justly proud. And there I took my PhD in Philosophy, especially in the area of epistemology or the theory of knowledge, and writing a dissertation on the question of self deception. I was then for three years a professor of apologetics and ethics at Reformed Theological Seminary in Mississippi. And during this last year I've been spending my time writing. There are two books of mine available, both being used in the ethics in the. In the political courses, not the course here. And then a syllabus of mine which we will be using in this course that you might be interested in. Then it might also be of interest to you to know that I'm an orthodox Presbyterian minister and my own theological convictions are those of the Reformed faith. I trust that won't prejudice you unduly in favor or against me. And I suppose the last thing of relevance you really should know about me. Well, I reside in California now and I would appreciate your prayers for my family while I'm gone. It's going to be a little difficult and you might want to know that. But the only other thing, and perhaps the most pertinent thing, is that I'm rooting for UCLA tonight and so if anything goes wrong and I don't show up on Wednesday, you'll understand why. Okay, I think the syllabi have gotten around now and why don't we go over it very quickly. The textbooks are listed there. First of all for you, my syllabus on Christian apologetics and then Brody's book Readings in the Philosophy of Religion and Analytic Approach and then Leslie Stevenson's book Seven Theories of Human Nature. And all of these are now available in the Christian bookstore in town. And I would encourage you, if you have not picked them up, to pick them up immediately because we're going to going to land on our feet in this course running and you'll want them this week. I think the grading in the course will be relatively simple, I would think in terms of your way of looking at it. The grades for this class will be determined by two take home exams, each one covering one half of the course. Each exam is going to cover the readings and lectures for the first half and then the second half. However, notice that these exams do not have to be turned in either one of them until the 6th of June at 12 noon. So you have half the term to do your first exam, and then you have a week to do the second. You have your own strategy of study and it really is quite irrelevant to me. My own recommendation is that you do the first exam, say in a week to 10 days, and get it out of the way so that you can concentrate on the second half of the course. But you are free to do whatever you want. And then students may use whatever resources they wish to complete these exams. I want to stress that that it is absolutely impossible to cheat on my exams. There is no resource that you can't use. You can even go to a fellow student, ask him for his exam, xerox it and turn it in. Of course, the grade for that kind of exam is probably not going to be very impressive, because I have a tendency to remember that sort of thing. However, if you need help from fellow students, or if you want to go to the Encyclopedia of Philosophy or quote right out of the book, you're free to do whatever you wish on the exams. I will evaluate you on your comprehension of the subject. And like I say, if there's a good deal of repetition between exams and that sort of thing will be taken into account. But that won't bother me. It's simply how much you want to get out of the course. It will be expected that answers reflect thoughtful integration of the lectures and readings. However, I don't want you to be under any pressure. And that's why these are take home exams. And that's why, like I said, it's impossible to cheat. You can use whatever you wish. The only thing I ask is that you show that you did some thinking about the course. Apart from that, the only requirement, and maybe this is even more important than the ones I've just given, is that it be typed and in good form. The professorial work that I've done in the past has taught me that. It's just a lot better for me if I'm able to get through these quicker, because I can read them. So please type them, have them in good form, double spaced the whole story, and end by the 6th of June at 12 o'. Clock. Okay? And then notice that in addition to the vacation dates of the 4th and 7th of April and 26th of May, the whole seminary is on vacation those days. This class will not meet on the following three Fridays, April 18, May 2 and May 16. Please jot those in your calendars so that you don't show up and then get angry with the professor because she came to school for nothing that day or something. I'm telling you in advance, I will be in Los Angeles those days visiting my family. And so you need not come. But those would be appropriate times to do some extra reading. Not extra, but to catch up on whatever you need to do, if you'd like. Now, about those readings. There's approximately 780 pages of readings that I'm assigning for you. Now, don't get too uptight about the idea of being assigned these readings, however, because you'll remember that the only way you're held accountable is on these two take home exams. However, I don't really think it's just because the readings are important that I don't feel a great need to quiz you on them. If you don't do the readings and have them prepared before you come to class, I rather doubt that you'll be able to follow the lecture material adequately. Now, you will be able to follow it, let's say you don't do your reading for some week because you've got an exam in another class or a paper or some illness or something like that. That will not by any means keep you from doing good work in the class. But it will be important that you make up that reading and I would think you rather quickly try to stay up. We're going to go through 10 topics, 10 basic topics in this class together in the short time that we have. And so I think you're going to want to keep up with it. If you're still thinking about the ontological argument when we're on the problem of evil, you're going to get a little confused. So do try to keep up. But like I say, there will be no way that I know whether you're doing them or not. Only the exams will reflect it. How many of you have previous work in philosophy? I'm curious, both from my lectures and. Okay, those of you who have not had work in philosophy will find some of the readings in Brody somewhat difficult. There is some logical notation, I think, in two of the, maybe three of the articles in the entire book. And when you come to that, if you don't already understand it from math or from logic, don't worry about it. In fact, don't worry about anything in any of these readings with 780 pages, I'm trying to give you the idea of what some philosophers say about some important questions. And so if you get to difficult things, don't let that bog you down. Just work through it as best you can, make a good common sense approach to it, try to discern the basic point the author's making in the article and then get on. And then those of you who are able to pick up more, pick up more. I had a seminary professor, Dr. Van Til, who used to speak of the bunny rabbits and the giraffes in his class. He said the bunny rabbits were always scurrying around in the grass, you know, doing their best to stay alive down there. And the giraffes were always with their long necks, eating off of the leaves, the trees, the most abstract philosophical thought. And this class is designed for both bunny rabbits and giraffes. And so as you're doing your reading, if you got a long neck and can stand the philosophical abstraction, please do grow as much as you possibly can by those readings. But if you can't, just scurry around in the grass and do the best you can and that'll be fine. Now let's look at the course outline very quickly. During this week, March 24th, 26th and 28th, you'll be reading my syllabus in its entirety. It's not very big. Each one of the chapters is only a page and a half or so. And I'd like you to have this completely read by the end of the week. If you desire to do so. I would suggest, if it's possible, you do it all by Wednesday. It's not very much reading. You may not be able to, but try to do it all by Wednesday. And the only reason I say that is because you're going to start doing the Brody readings for Monday. And I think it'd be good by Friday that you're free and you're scheduled to start that. But anyway, this week, my syllabus on apologetics and then the dates I will not read out for you. But the topics after we do a Christian approach to philosophy are going to be the existence of God, the question of religious language, then philosophical questions about the attributes of God, and then that part of the course will be summed up in a take home exam. Then we'll start again. God's relationship to the world, the nature of man. That's where the Leslie Stevenson book comes in for those three days. Then man's relationship to God, a question of religion and morality, philosophical questions about the end of all things, if you will, philosophical eschatology. And then the last day of class, if all, will be a concluding lecture where I'll give an overview of what we've done and make some Critical remarks. All right. Do we have any questions before we begin today's lecture? Okay. The only thing I would say about class procedure is I welcome questions. I welcome you to challenge anything I say. I like to make sure that I'm being clear and I fill in the gaps in whatever I'm saying. However, I do find that it's probably best in a class this size anyway for you to hold your questions until I come to the end of a paragraph and then say, do you have any questions about that? Because if you're interrupting in the middle of sentence, I may, it's possible, anticipate what you're thinking about and get to it. And so we'll wait until critical junctures, and then I'll invite your questions. But please, by all means, give them and take as much time as you think is necessary for them. Okay. I'm going to try to cover four topics in the hour that we have now. First of all, why should the Christian study philosophy? Some of you may be asking that question about this course. However, it is not so much a course rationale as it is really an introduction to the whole subject as to why Christians are interested in the field. And then secondly, if Christians should study philosophy, I guess, you know, I'm going to argue that you should. What is it that we are studying? What is philosophy? What is a philosophical approach to questions? And then I'm going to get into some rather detailed material about the twofold character of philosophy, the unbelieving versus the believing approach to philosophy. And then I'd like to finish up this class, period, by looking at the dialectical tension that exists in all unbelieving systems of philosophy. Now, these three days that we have this week together, I'm going to be giving you my own characterization of a Christian approach to philosophy. And that's what you're also going to be reading in the syllabus. That will give you an idea of how we're going to approach the issues that arise in detail next week and following. Okay. Why should the Christian study philosophy? You know, in a real sense, people have thought the Bible answers that question by saying that the Bible, excuse me, that the Christian should not study philosophy. If you have the Scripture with you, turn to Colossians, the second chapter, verses 1 to 10, Colossians 2. Paul says, For I would have you know how greatly I strive for you and for them at Laodicea, and for as many as have not seen my face in the flesh, that their hearts may be comforted, they being knit together in love and unto all the riches of the full assurance of understanding, that they may know the mystery of God, even Christ, in whom are all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge hidden. This I say, that no one may delude you with persuasiveness of speech. For though I am absent in the flesh, yet I am with you in the Spirit, joying and beholding your order and the steadfastness of your faith in Christ. Therefore, as you have received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in him rooted, and build it up in him, and established in your faith, even as you were taught, abounding in thanksgiving. Take heed, lest there shall be anyone who makes spoil of you through philosophy and vain, deceitful, which is after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. For in him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily, and in him you are made full, who is the head of all principality and power. Like I say, it seems that Paul is telling us in Colossians 2 that we should shun philosophy. Beware, he says, that anybody is going to make spoil of you through philosophy. However, as a matter of fact, you can't really obey the injunction of the Apostle Paul. You cannot keep Paul's exhortation without studying philosophy. If you don't study philosophy, you can't obey what Paul tells you to do here in Colossians 2. For, you see, Paul tells you to avoid a certain kind of philosophy. But if you don't study philosophy, you're not going to know when you encounter that kind of philosophy, in order to discern which systems of thought actually are vain, deceitful, after human tradition, after worldly presuppositions, and not after Christ. You need to do some studying. Can you imagine a doctor who says, you see, I'm not really interested in disease. Disease. That's negative, that's bad, that's sad. That's something we don't like to look at. I'm interested in health. I don't want to give people disease, and so I don't worry about studying disease. I want to give people health, and so I only study healthy bodies. Would that make any sense? A doctor cannot give his patients health unless he knows what disease is and how to encounter disease and how to deal with it. In the same way Paul says, beware of this kind of diseased philosophy, the kind that's vain, the kind that is after human tradition and worldly presuppositions, the kind that's not after Christ. But you won't know what kind of philosophy meets that description and fits the bill unless you study philosophy to begin with. Moreover, you'll notice that what Paul says here implies that there is a philosophy that is after Christ. He says, beware of that philosophy which is not after Christ. And by implication there is a philosophy then that is after Christ. And certainly those of us who are followers of Jesus Christ are going to want that philosophy as our own. We're going to want to have a Christian philosophy. Turn over to 1 Timothy 6, the very end of First Letter to Timothy by Paul 6:20. Paul says, Timothy, guard that which is committed unto thee, turning away from the profane babblings and oppositions of knowledge, which is falsely so called, which some professing have erred concerning the faith. And that's the concluding exhortation of Timothy. Grace be with you, Timothy. When all is said and done, Timothy, guard the gospel and beware of that which is knowledge falsely so called. Paul says, there are in this world plenty of systems of thought claiming to be knowledge. Beware of them. Beware of those things which are not after Christ, which are oppositions of false knowledge, pseudo knowledge, because the profession of these will lead you to make mistakes concerning the faith. You will err concerning the faith if you do this. So there is a knowledge falsely so called, that opposes the gospel. And by implication there is a knowledge truly so called, which is according to the gospel. There is a Christian theory of knowledge, a Christian epistemology, a Christian philosophy. So in order to guard the gospel and in order to protect Christ's little ones, and that is, I see it as one of the primary tasks of a pastor, especially as those little ones grow up in a secular world and mindset and environment, and go off to college and find out that not everybody has faith. You know, you as a pastor are going to have to be equipped to deal with the difficult questions that are going to come to these young people. You as a pastor must know false philosophy so that you can confute it with true philosophy. So why should a Christian study philosophy? Well, in the first place, for critical discernment, Colossians 2 says, Watch out for philosophy that's not after Christ. Secondly, in order to preserve knowledge. For Paul goes on to say in Colossians 2, verse 8, that if you don't, you're going to be robbed of the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. In Christ we know things, because in Christ are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. Colossians 2:3. But if you're not careful, you're going to get robbed, robbed of your treasure the treasure of knowledge, those riches that are found in Christ where all wisdom and knowledge resides. Proverbs 1:7 tells us that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge. It's the head of knowledge. It's the first part, it's the most crucial element. And if you don't take the first step properly and down the right road, you're going to be on the wrong track and you're going to land in that realm of pseudo knowledge that Paul speaks of when he writes to Timothy, the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge. And so to preserve knowledge we must study philosophy, that we not be robbed by vain philosophies after the traditions of worldly thinking. And then thirdly, in Titus 1:9, I think we find another rationale for studying philosophy as Christians. Here Paul is giving Titus some of the qualifications of an elder in the church of Jesus Christ. He says, for the overseer must be. This is verse seven. Blameless as God's steward, not self willed, not soon angry, no brawler, no striker, no person who's greedy, a filthy Luke, but given to hospitality, a lover of good, sober minded, just, holy, self controlled, holding to the faithful word, which is according to the teaching that he may be able both to exhort in the sound doctrine and to confute the gainsayers. Why do you study philosophy? So that you'll know how to hold more firmly to the faithful word of God and then confute the gainsayers. If you come before the Church of Jesus Christ, of whatever denomination or local assembly, and present yourself as one called to the ministry and graced by Christ with certain gifts for that calling, and you're not able to confute the gainsayers, then you're not living up to what the New Testament tells you about the qualifications of the minister. And so why should you study philosophy? So that you can be an able minister of the new Covenant, able to confute the gainsayers and thereby guard the Gospel. In Jude verse three, we have a similar kind of exhortation. Jude says, beloved, while I was giving all diligence to write unto you of our common salvation, I was constrained to write unto you, exhorting you to contend with earnestly for the faith, which was once for all delivered to the saints. If you're going to strive earnestly and contend earnestly for the faith and confute the gainsayers, then I hope the study of philosophy is going to be part of your scholarly diet. Now again, we may read philosophy at different levels of proficiency and different Levels of interest in detail. But the fact is I think we all need to be studying philosophy in some measure that we might. One, have critical discernment, two, preserve knowledge, and three, guard the gospel. Well, if we have to study philosophy, the question becomes what is philosophy? But because I've been talking for a little while and you may have some questions, let's take a moment here to discuss this. Anything unclear you want to ask about in that? Motivation for studying philosophy, perhaps motivation for staying in this class, but more importantly, motivation for studying it wherever you may pick it up? No. Boy, we're doing great. Okay, go ahead. One thing that I commonly hear, and I know that others hear, is we don't need to be a defense attorney for the gospel. Do you reject that kind of thinking? I. Most outright. And I think anybody who wants to do a systematic reading of the New Testament, and that isn't to say that my readings by any means perfect or my obedience by any means faithful. But the fact is the New Testament tells you you must be a defense attorney because you must be prepared always to give a rationale, an answer, an apologetic for the hope that is in you, according to First Peter 3:15. That's a clear commandment of the New Testament. And I didn't bring that in because that is the, if you will, the Magna Carta of Christian philosophy and apologetics. And you've probably heard enough that I didn't cite it. I worked around it through other passages. But I think that summarizes what we're saying. If you're going to be prepared to give an answer for the hope that is in you, I think you're going to have to know the worldly ways of thinking to which you're giving answer. So yeah, I don't think think it's right to say that the gospel doesn't need a defense attorney. Unless you mean by that that somehow God doesn't need our wisdom. He certainly doesn't need our wisdom and God doesn't need our efforts as though his arm is shortened or somehow weak and we're going to make up for his deficiencies. But I do think we're under obligation to give answer and that is the defensive task. Am I scratching where you're itching? A lot of times you hear people say things like, well, you know, you don't have. Well, I suppose a Moslem could say the same thing, right? Let his words speak for himself. And an atheist let his words speak for himself. No, it just seems to me that is if I can use the colloquial expression copying out from the very thing that causes all the differences among these worldly systems of thought is that everybody lets them speak for themselves. And what I'm going to be arguing if we get to it today toward the end, is, as a matter of fact, unbelieving systems of thought don't speak so well for themselves. And that's all the more reason why we should be telling people in our educated and sophisticated secular culture today that they need Christ as much as the milkman, who doesn't care a thing about philosophy needs Christ. So does the university professor. Now, if you're able to witness to the milkman and to the university professor, then it seems to me you're coming close to fulfilling Peter's exhortation to be able to give an answer to any man who asks you for a reason of the hope that's in you. I thought I saw another hand. Many people in Joshua's defense who say, I don't have to defend the Bible, they mean I don't have to prove the Bible defend in the sense of prove. And they're in favor of presuppositionalism in a sense. Often people think that defense as truth. Well, I would say that we are called upon to prove the truth of the Bible too. But the manner of proof is going to be in dispute. Whether you prove it by relying upon your own wisdom and your own starting point and assumptions, or do you prove it by starting with what God says and showing the impossibility of the contrary? As you read my booklet, you'll see that it's from the impossibility of the contrary that I'm going to be arguing. All right, what is philosophy? The most fundamental questions which confront every human being, those which are systematically basic about reality, knowledge and behavior, are philosophical in nature. And this becomes manifest as soon as you start probing into such questions or comparing divergent answers to them. And so in a real sense, the issue is not whether we should do philosophy, but how should we do philosophy, because everybody's going to do philosophy. It's only a question of whether they'll do it well, whether they'll do it self consciously, whether they'll do it consistently. Nobody who thinks about what this world is all about, what their life means, how they know anything, anybody who thinks about those questions, and that means everybody, because everybody thinks about those questions, is doing philosophy. But not everybody does philosophy well. Not everybody does it self consciously or reflectively. And so the most fundamental questions are the philosophical questions, is what I'm saying. Let me tell you the characteristics of philosophical questions. It's only one way of putting it, but I think it'll help you kind of delineate the difference between historical or biological and then philosophical questions. Philosophical questions are those which are conceptual in nature. They have a very broad application to one's world and life view. To put it another way, they are logically fundamental. They are the most basic issues of life for a person. Those are philosophical questions. They are conceptual. They range over broad areas of his world and life view. Not only are they conceptual, broad, or logically fundamental. That's all one way of putting it. Secondly, they are beyond the competence of any particular science or group of sciences. When a person asks a philosophical question. You cannot get an answer to a philosophical question by reading a biology textbook or a biology textbook and a history textbook, or a biology textbook and a history textbook and a math textbook. Philosophical questions are in their very nature not answerable by any particular science or group of sciences. They are conceptual in character. They go beyond the range of any particular group of sciences. And so the evidence which is relevant to the solution of a philosophical question is not easily identifiable. Philosophy seems to be in that no man's land where you start talking about what is truth, what is real, what is correct and right, what is beautiful, and you start asking these questions and it's not really clear what the relevant evidence is. Across the board for answering philosophical questions. It will be, it seems to me, divergent according to one's world and life view. And so in one sense, we can characterize philosophical questions that way. Philosophical questions are conceptual and they're beyond the competence of any particular field. Historically, philosophers have searched for the basic principles by which to explain and interpret a total account of reality, a final criterion of truth, and an absolute ethical standard. Historically, philosophers have, it seems to me, you can group them this way. They have searched for basic principles by which to explain and interpret a total account of reality, a final criterion of truth, and an absolute ethical standard. And these basic principles, it will turn out these basic principles are such that no further explanation or proof is needed for them. A minute ago I said they are logically fundamental. That is to say, once you get to these principles, your reasoning goes no further. These are the most ultimate principles of your life. No further explanation, no further proof is needed. For these philosophical basic commitments are what you will often hear me call one's presuppositions, those things which he's committed to prior to even his hypotheses and his suppositions. Sure, let me read this one paragraph Historically, philosophers have searched for the basic principles by which to explain and interpret a total account of reality, A final criterion of truth, And an absolute standard of ethics. I say historically, that's what philosophy is dealt with. What are the most basic principles to explain and interpret these three things? Now, notice that typically, I've been speaking historically, but now, typically, philosophers have then dealt with religious questions, haven't they? Stop and think about it for a minute. Look at the religious character. A total account of reality is part of the study of metaphysics. Just think of certain metaphysical questions. Why is there something rather than nothing? The Christian answers that on the basis of his understanding of the doctrine of creation. Another metaphysical question. Why are things the way they are? I mean, okay, now that there's something, why is this something like this rather than like that? Why are things the way they are? The Christian has a doctrine of providence by which he explains that. Another metaphysical question. What are the most basic features of reality? What is most true about the real world? And that's very similar to the religious quest for the ultimate. So you see that philosophers studying metaphysics have traditionally been very interested in religious questions. Think about epistemology, if you will, the theory of knowledge. Typical epistemological questions have pressed people to religious issues. What is knowledge? What is truth? How is knowledge possible? How do we go about gaining knowledge? What is the standard of falsity and truth? These are again religious questions, questions of ultimate concern for people. And the most obvious one, of course, is ethics. An absolute standard of behavior or ethics. It's been studied by philosophers. How should we live? The Christian has a distinct answer to that based upon his understanding of the word of God. And so historically, philosophers have studied metaphysics, epistemology and ethics. And in so doing, they have typically been engaged in religious disputes. And that brings us into the picture. Why are we studying philosophy at a Christian seminary? We're doing so because in the very nature of the case, philosophy is religiously oriented. Now, the last remark I want to make about what is philosophy? And it's an important one, although we'll make it rather quickly. The philosophical task is two fold. When you're doing philosophy, there's really two different kinds of procedures that you're following. First of all, there's the critical procedure in philosophy, and secondly, the constructive procedure. Let me say just a word about each one of those. The critical task of philosophy is that of gaining clear thinking. To put it very simply, philosophers are critically minded because they want to think clearly. They want to gain clear thinking by scrutinizing arguments and by studying the basic presuppositions of people's thought. Philosophical task is first critical, the task of gaining clear thinking by scrutinizing arguments and studying the most basic presuppositions that people have. But then secondly, the philosophical task is constructive as well. Not only do we critically, you see, look at these arguments and narrow things down to the most basic presuppositions, but philosophers want to unify the field of knowledge as well. Now that we've got these basic presuppositions, how do they relate to each other? How do you bring together the truths of biology and history and math? How do you unify an artistic approach to life with a scientific approach to life? The philosopher is the one who's concerned with that kind of question. His constructive task is that of achieving a unified and overall world and life view. And so in one sense, the philosopher is critical, always trying to see, narrow things down to the most basic presuppositions, scrutinizing arguments, get your thinking clear. But on the other hand, he wants to range over all systems of thought, all approaches to life, all, if you will, departments of knowledge, and try to bring unifying principles to bear on them so that he can achieve a unified and overall world and life view. Alright. There are conferences of philosophers where men from all over the world get together and argue with each other for three days about what philosophy really is. And so I don't pretend to have said everything that can conceivably said or taken up every approach to the subject, but to my own way of thinking, that is what philosophy is. Those are the kinds of questions philosophers ask and those are the kinds of procedures by which they answer them. Now, what questions would you have about that approach, Sir? I don't think most secular philosophers would have difficulty with that. As long as you don't have such a narrow conception of religion. Meaning that those who study philosophy are always worshiping some ultimate being they don't consider. Many of them don't consider themselves worshipping creatures. They ought to be, but they don't. But that doesn't make them any of the less religious. Many humanists that I know and studied with would admit they're very religious people. They have ultimate concerns. They happen to think that the world world is more ultimate than God, or that man's thought is more ultimate than scripture and things like that. But nevertheless, that is traditionally taken the function of religion. It's what we call religious concern. And so apart from defining terms differently, I don't think they'd have any Difficulty with what I've said so far. They'll have plenty of difficulty in just a minute. In giving the Christian answers. That's right. That's what you want to do. The person says, now wait a minute. You're making an appeal to faith, for instance. And what you want to be able to say is, well, yeah, given our conception of faith, I am making an appeal to faith. But you have your own appeals to faith too. You have this kind of blind confidence in the fact that 99% of logicians can't be wrong or something. So you want to be able to say you've got religious interest and I've got religious interests. We may have different religions, but nevertheless they are of ultimate significance to us and basic presuppositional functions in our world and life view. Yeah, what you said. What's on the board then? The scope of philosophy is engage in studying philosophy as three metaphysics, epistemology and ethics. For the most part, if you go to the university and take a PhD in philosophy today, you'll find that they're breaking it down much more now. You'll find not just the traditional categories of metaphysics, epistemology and ethics. You'll find things like metaethics and normative ethics. You'll find questions about philosophy of mind and philosophy, philosophy of history in addition to metaphysics, and philosophy of man in addition to metaphysics, also philosophy of science in addition to epistemology. And as I see them, those are. But if you want to put it this way, concentrated concerns on a subdivision of the three that are on the board when all is said and done. You're not going to go wrong to think of philosophy as being these three basic areas, although the subdivisions are getting a lot more attention these days than they have traditionally. Yeah, No, no, not a one world system in the sense that everybody in the world holds this system. But they are trying to get a unified worldview. They're trying to bring together what they know about politics and what they know about science, what they know about art and what they know about history. Yeah, the philosopher is the one who tries to give you, you see, a perspective on life and perspective on man, a perspective on behavior that will allow for that integration. And I think everybody does have an integrated world and life view, however, have to add to that that unbelievers have, it seems to me, also a schizophrenic world in life view because they're creatures created in the image of God and therefore they know certain things that we know, but they suppress the truth and then set up idolatrous systems of philosophy in the place of them. And they try to live on both systems, it seems to me. And so it's integrated in one sense, and that everybody has kind of his approach to life, life overall. But then there are within that approach to life, tensions that we're going to be exploring in a few moments. Okay, let's look at what I call the twofold character of philosophy. Now, this is where we start parting ways. We've talked about why we're motivated to do this study and what the study is about in general, in generic terms. But now what we need to point out from the Christian perspective, from the perspective of the Word of God, is that there is a true philosophy and there is a false philosophy. There is a, if you will, appropriate approach to philosophical questions and a most inappropriate approach to philosophical questions. First of all, there is the Christian approach to philosophy. A Christian approach to philosophy is an attempt to answer questions of this nature humbly before God and obediently to his revelation. A Christian says we have to answer these religious questions of the philosophers humbly before our God. And according to his revelation. The Christian says that it is important for man to wear the spectacles of Scripture if he's going to obtain a correct view of the entire sin affected universe. We need to put on, you see, the eyeglasses, the spectacles, the glasses of Scripture. And through the teachings of Scripture, looking through the teaching of Scripture, we can understand the world aright about reality, knowledge and life. 119th Psalm, verse 105, the word thy word is a lamp unto my feet and a light upon my path. You see, Scripture is that which throws light upon the path, even of the philosopher. Scripture enables us to see correctly so that we don't stumble in the dark. You may remember in the Mosaic Law how it says the law of the Lord was to be written between the eyes and upon the hand. You ever stop to think what that symbolism is all about? Some unbelieving Jews thought that was to be taken literally. And so they wear little boxes with portions of Scripture on their hand and around their forehead. But the idea here, I think is very close to what I'm trying to give you by the metaphor of the spectacles of Scripture. Everything your hand does, everything you do in the world should be controlled by the revelation of God and also between the eyes. The way you see the world, the way you think about things, should be controlled by the Word of God. That is a Christian approach to philosophy. What is philosophy? Just take the word etymologically Greek goddess. What is philosophy? Phileo, meaning love. Okay, anybody have any suggestions for Sophia? Wisdom. Right. The love of wisdom. That is philosophy, pure and simple. And for the Christian philosophy, as the love of wisdom has its source in God. Why? Well, just think about it. In Romans 16:27, Paul speaks of the Father as God only wise. The only wise one is God the Father. And so philosophy, the love of wisdom must begin with the love of God. First Corinthians 1:24 speaks of the Son of God as the wisdom of God. Christ is the expression of God's wisdom. And in Isaiah 11:2, the Holy Spirit is called the Spirit of wisdom and understanding. And so to think about the Father, God only wise, the Son, the wisdom of God and the Spirit. The Spirit of wisdom and understanding is going to be for the Christian the source of his love of wisdom. Philosophy has its source in God. As I've already said. In Proverbs 1:7 we read the beginning of knowledge is the fear of the Lord. The reverence that one ought given is something very distinctive. In his word. He has revealed Himself. He is the source of our wisdom. And if we don't begin with the fear of the Lord, we aren't going to have wisdom or knowledge. In fact, the Bible tells us in Colossians 3:10 that men must be renewed unto knowledge. The believer can be characterized in a lot of different ways, but one of the ways he can be characterized is one who is renewed unto knowledge. Unbelievers don't have that privilege. By God's grace, we do Colossians 3:10, and have put on the new man that is being renewed unto knowledge after the image of him that created him, after the image of the Creator. Renewed unto knowledge. In second Timothy 2:25, we read that we have to be given or granted repentance unto a knowledge of the truth. What does repentance mean in the Greek? Etymologically meta, not e'. O. What's that? To turn. Okay, that is also another word for repentance. But in this case it's also a turning of naeo, the mind turning around of your thinking. You see, your thinking is going down the track like this. And when God grants you repentance, that train just flips over and goes the other direction. The thinking of a repentant man turns around second Timothy 2:25. In meekness, correcting them that oppose themselves. If peradventure, God may give them repentance unto the knowledge of the truth. And then 2 Corinthians 10:5, I think perhaps captures encapsulates more than anything else, the Christian approach to issues of philosophy. 2nd Corinthians 10:5. I'll start reading at verse 4. For the weapons of our warfare are not according to the flesh, but they are mighty before God. To the casting down of strongholds, casting down reasonings, and every high thing that is exalted against the knowledge of God and notice, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ. We as evangelicals tend to think of bringing every part of our behavior in life into obedience to Christ. But here Paul specifically says, every thought that you have must be obedient to Christ. The Christian thinks in a way that the non Christian doesn't think. Don't think that. You see, we have this common humanity and therefore we share all these other things. But then you see over here, while we have all this in common, there's this one little slice of life right here, the religious part of life that we have and they don't have. You see, they've got three legs to the table of life and we've got the fourth. We've got religion. Nothing could be further from a biblical perspective on the nature of unbelieving thought and living. You see, the unbeliever in principle has nothing. The Christian, by contrast to the unbeliever, doesn't just think differently about religion. He thinks differently about all of life. Every thought is brought captive to the obedience of Christ. That can't be said of an unbeliever. It can't be said of the unbeliever that his knowledge has begun with the fear of the Lord. It can't be said that he's been renewed unto knowledge, that he's been granted repentance unto a knowledge, the truth. There is a distinctive Christian philosophy, then it isn't. To say that I or anybody else is always a pristine, pure example of it doesn't mean that we don't sin when we engage in philosophy and we don't fall into error. But in principle it means that we have a distinctive approach to these things. And so for the Christian, philosophical discussion does not mean beginning without the Bible. I don't know how often you're going to read. Undoubtedly you'll read it in Brody's Book of Readings, and you're going to encounter it throughout your life. The unbelieving world will tell you this, and sadly enough, much of the believing world will tell you that when you do philosophy, you stand on a common footage with everybody else. And then after a while, we bring in the Bible. It is, if you will, we begin by laying a foundation in unaided human reason. Come, let us reason together. Not thus saith the Lord, but let's reason together, you and I as fallen men. Let's just use, you see our unaided intellect here for a minute and see how far we can get. And then after reason has built a certain platform and has given us certain answers about life and the world and truth. And then to that we can add, you see, our faith, what the Bible has to tell us. We reason with the unbeliever in common so far. And then we add to that whatever the Bible says distinctively over against that the Bible would say, if one doesn't lay the foundation of faith, if one doesn't first begin with the fear of the Lord being renewed unto knowledge, being granted a repentance unto the knowledge of the truth, if one doesn't first submit to Jesus Christ, in whom are all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge, then there is no reason at all. There's but darkness and hardness of heart and futility. Paul says in Romans 1 in uncertain terms, that those who suppress the truth about God, who will not confess saving faith in him, that they are sent on a fool's errand in trying to put together a world and life view. And we. And what happens is they end up professing wisdom, but having what vanity and foolishness as their fare. And so reason, you see, must be built on the foundation of faith, according to the Christian, whereas the unbeliever says no, reason must be the foundation. And if anything, faith becomes just an ancillary appendix added to it after the fact. Engaging in philosophical discussion doesn't mean beginning without Scripture, only then to bring it in later, when certain preliminary matters have been established. And the reason for that is, at least on my own approach. The Bible is not merely a sourcebook for theology. Narrowly conceived. The Bible is not simply a source book for theology in a very narrow sense. Matters having to do with one's soul and eternal destiny. Now, if you have a broad enough view of theology, then I'll be glad to say the Bible's a sourcebook for theology. But most of us think of theology in the narrow sense of systematic theology, doctrine of God, doctrine of Christ, angiology, eschatology, soteriology, what have you. The Bible is not merely a sourcebook of theological doctrines that way. The Bible is a sourcebook for life. And that means everything we do must be brought into captivity to Christ. Not just the way I treat my children, but the way I reason through the most difficult questions of my existence. And so I'M trying to get across to you. There is a twofold character to philosophy because the Christian has a distinct approach to it. And if you want to put it very simply, I would say that the Christmas Christian approach to philosophy is that he aims to be receptively reconstructive. That's going to be kind of a motto, if you will. It's not my own, I've borrowed it from Dr. Van Till. But I think it puts together very nicely what I'm trying to say here. If you get that in your notes, then I'll explain it. We're going to try to be receptively reconstructive in all of our thinking. First of all. Receptive? Receptive of what? What God has said in the Scripture. We begin with the word of God and what better authority is there about reality, truth and life than our Maker and our Redeemer and our coming judge? So we'll begin by receiving what he has to say by his revelation and then reconstructing God's truth according to the questions of our day. We receive God's word and reconstruct his thinking according to the questions that are being put to us. That is to say, the Bible doesn't necessarily give us, quote unquote pat answers to the questions of existential philosophy, but one can reconstruct an answer after he receives what God has said. An answer to the existential philosophers. We want to interpret all things in terms of the triune God under the lordship of Jesus Christ and according to the revelation found in Scripture. To be receptively reconstructive is to interpret everything in terms of the triune God under the lordship of Christ and according to his revelation in Scripture. Now then, I said there's a twofold philosophy and we should say something about the non Christian philosophy. The false approach to philosophy that the Bible speaks of or non Christian philosophy is an attempt to answer questions autonomously, hindering the truth in unrighteousness. Let me you will, I hope, be able to discern something of an outline and balancing in my lectures. If you'll go back and look at the first thing you have in your notes about Christian philosophy, you'll see the contrasting characterization. I said Christian philosophy is an attempt to answer these questions humbly before God and obediently to his revelation. By contrast, the non Christian philosophy is an attempt to answer these questions autonomously, not humbly before God, but autonomously, according to one's own thinking and self sufficient reason, hindering the truth and unrighteousness rather than submitting to the truth. Found in the Scriptures. Non Christian philosophy is an attempt to answer questions autonomously, hindering the truth in unrighteousness. Let's just go through some basic scriptural passages talking about about unbelieving thought. Romans 1:18 20 There Paul says the unbeliever suppresses the truth in unrighteousness. 1st Corinthians 1:20 21 Paul says, Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Hasn't God made foolish the wisdom of the world for when the world would not know God? Okay, there's your characterization. The unbeliever suppresses the truth and he will not know God. He refuses to know the Lord. First Timothy 6:20 We've looked at Paul speaks of the vain babblings of knowledge falsely so called Colossians 2:8. We've already looked at vain deceit after worldly presuppositions. In 1 Corinthians 2:14 Paul tells us that the natural man cannot know the things of the Spirit. 2nd Corinthians 10:5 I read just a moment ago talked of that reasoning that exalts itself against the knowledge of God. We're beginning to build up quite a characterization of unbelieving thought here, and it's not a very flattering one suppresses the truth and unrighteousness will not know God. Vain babblings of knowledge falsely so called vain deceit after worldly presuppositions cannot know the things of the Spirit exalting itself against the knowledge of God. You see the arrogance and the pride in the self sufficiency and the sinfulness of unbelieving philosophy. If for no other reason we cannot believe that we can make common causes with unbelieving philosophy because the Bible condemns it. And it certainly can never be the obligation of the Christian to live or think in such a way that is condemned by God. The reason the Bible says these things about unbelieving thought is because the fall of man affected every aspect of his personality, not just his emotions, not just his will, not just the way he lives, but but it affected his intellect as well. Man is a fallen creature in the way he thinks. His thinking is not normal, it's abnormal. It's contrary to the pattern of righteousness. It is autonomous. What does autonomy in Greek mean? Self law. He is a law to himself. He's self sufficient. He says I'll have no judge over my thoughts, but my own thinking. So God, if you wish to be acknowledged God, if you wish to be obeyed, if you want me to believe in you, well then God, you prove yourself to me. You see, it says C.S. lewis put it so well in that famous essay, God in the Dock. You see, the unbeliever's at the bench, he's the judge. And God stands down there in the dock pleading for acceptance before the vain delusive thinking of an unbeliever. The Bible never portrays it that way. The Bible says the unbeliever is not competent to judge because he's fallen in his intellect. The unregenerate man attempts to interpret everything without reference to God. He tries to interpret things by his self sufficient reason, using naturalistic categories and intracosmic relations. Anything that's going to be explained is going to be explained on the lower level, if you want to put it that way. You never make reference to God to explain things. Okay, so there was a professor of physics once out of UCLA who came to class once and said that he is of the conviction that Christ rose from the dead. That didn't mean he was a Christian, because while he believed Christ rose from the dead, he said in physics we just learned that all sorts of freakish things, things happen in nature from time to time. And while we can't yet account for this, we are still looking for the naturalistic principles by which we'll be able to explain how certain people rise from the dead, are dead and then come to life again. You see, for him the resurrection was not God raising up by his Spirit his Son and vindicating him, that we might be justified in his sight for all eternity. By no means. The Resurrection was for him nothing more but the resurrection resuscitation of a corpse. And so don't you see, the unbeliever wants to interpret everything, even what we call miraculous. He wants to find naturalistic explanations for it. Well, what is true and very obvious in that extreme and unusual example is true all the way down the line in unbelieving thought. The unbeliever wants to explain the economic systems of our day, wants to explain the political systems of our day, wants to explain how we know anything in science. He wants to explain art, he wants to explain psychology. Everything is explained naturalistically in terms of intracosmic relations. Never by reference to God, never by reference to creation, Providence, incarnation, coming, judgment. So there's quite a difference. There is, if you will, a collision of worldviews between the Christian and the non Christian. While the Christian wants to be receptively reconstructive, we can put it this way, of the unbeliever, he wishes to be creatively constructive. Instead of receiving what the Creator says in his word. The unbeliever wants to be his own creator. He wants to create that pattern of thought that will explain his life and world. And he wants to be constructive. He wants to construct his own world and life view on his own. He's going to be creatively constructive in his philosophy rather than receptively reconstructive. Or if all of this is getting just a little abstract for you, let me put it very simply. The Christian wants to think God's thoughts after him when he does his philosophy, and the unbeliever refuses to do so. A Christian wants to to think God's thoughts after him, and the unbeliever refuses to do so. The Christian knows that the mind of man is fallen and needs to be redeemed and enlightened by the Spirit and guided by the Word. But the unbeliever says, no, my mind is quite normal, quite all right as it is. Is what self instructive? Self instructive. That's a good way of putting it. Sure. Okay. So in principle, there is a contrast, there is a clash between the two approaches to philosophy. They are systematically contrary. In principle, systematically contrary because. And you want to get these three things in your notes. Each has a different starting point for thought, each is a different method and standard for thought, and then each has a different conclusion. Unbelieving philosophy has a different starting point, a different method, and consequently a different conclusion. Starting point, Method and conclusion, starting point, method or standard, if you want to put it that way, standard for thought, truth, and then a different conclusion. And we won't have time to read these passages of Scripture. But if you'd like to do so in your own personal growth and devotion today, you might look at First Corinthians 1, 1731, 1 Corinthians 2, 4, 5, then 10, 16, First Corinthians 3, 1823. Paul has a sustained polemic in these three chapters of First Corinthians about the contrast between worldly wisdom and the foolishness of God. It's very instructive. If you'll remember what you were taught this afternoon and read those passages, I trust they might come a little alive for you, might lighten up for you a bit. And then Ephesians 4, 17:24 speaks of the contrast between believing and unbelieving approaches to philosophy as well. Well, now I have been stressing that there is a clash between these two approaches to philosophy. And that's what you've got to get very firmly in mind as we approach the basic questions of the philosophy of religion as we do in this course. But having said all this, you might say, haven't I overstated the case? Because if there is this clash that is systematically fundamental, then how can believer and unbeliever even communicate with each other? How can they collaborate, cooperate in scientific efforts or scholarly endeavors? Is it possible for there to be any cooperation between believer and unbeliever if there is this clash that is so basic and fundamental? Well, now, I hope this doesn't come as too big of a surprise, but I think believers and unbelievers can work together. I think they do work together, finding solutions to problems like about polio and how to build bridges and all sorts of endeavors. But if they are so systematically different, how is it possible? I'm going to give you three explanations of how we can still communicate and cooperate with scholars and scientists who have different philosophical presuppositions. First of all, there is an inconsistency between the principles by which the unbeliever says he lives and those by which he lives. In practice, there's an inconsistency between his principle and his practice. Okay? The unbeliever says, as a matter of principle, I always explain things according to logic and fact, Never any appeal to faith and assumption. But of course, in practice, he doesn't do that at all. And as a matter of fact, in practice, Paul tells us he's lived on borrowed capital. He's using our assumptions. Give you an example. Say we have a scientist come to the seminary, and he teaches us, you see, the unbelieving world and life view of naturalism. The scientist says, I don't believe that anything exists, that anything is true, that anything is valid except that which can be verified according to my senses. And then the guy goes outside after the lecture, and he finds that his car has been stolen, and he's just incensed about it. What right is anybody to steal my car? And when he does finally get home, taking the bus, apparently he'll kiss his wife and love his children. And yet this is the same man who in the afternoon lecture said, nothing exists except what. What I can touch with my senses. And yet he believes our ethical standards, and he believes in human dignity and love, you see? So he says one thing. There's the principle of unbelieving thought. But in practice, he lives as though this is a Christian world in which God made men as his own image with dignity and moral standards. So the inconsistency between principle and practice makes it possible to make common cause with unbelievers at some points and to communicate with them. Secondly, the Bible tells us that though it is sinfully suppressed, the unbeliever has a natural knowledge of God. Despite his protest, despite his attempt to suppress it, all men know God. And so I think perhaps the most delicate and yet important thing for a Christian philosopher to keep in mind as he's dealing with an unbelieving philosopher, is the twofold nature of the man to whom he speaks. He is both a creature and a sinner. And it seems to me some approaches to Christian philosophy stress, this man's a creature. He knows God, so he's perfectly all right as far as he goes, okay? No qualification has to be made. We can make common cause with them without worrying or being cautious or anything. Because he's a creature. He knows God. He doesn't say so, but he knows God. You see, that omits the fact that not only is he a creature, he's a sinner. He's a sinful creature, one who is always distorting and suppressing and holding down the truth and unrighteousness. But then you can make the opposite mistake too, and you can think of the man over here as nothing but a sinner and forget that he also is a creature. You see, he doesn't stop being something that has been made by God and can't escape God's knowledge. So though it's sinfully suppressed, unbelievers have a natural knowledge of God and that enables communication and cooperation. And then thirdly, we must remember the work of the Holy Spirit according to Scripture, in restraining the rebellion of the unbeliever, the Holy Spirit restrains the unbeliever from being as consistent in his rebellion as he would be. In some theological circles, this is known as common grace. Common grace is the curbing activity of the Spirit by which he keeps people from being as evil as they would be if left to themselves. It's not enabling grace, mind you. This is not special saving grace. It doesn't enable the unbeliever. It simply, if you will, restrains him from becoming as ignorant and as sinful as he would be. Ordinarily, common grace does not nullify the need for special grace. The unbeliever, still a sinner needs to be saved. Whether we're talking about politics, whether we're talking about mathematics, science, art, or religion, he still needs special grace in all these areas. And we must still have a challenge to repentance in all of these areas. But we must remember throughout those areas that God's common grace is operative. The spirit restraining the sinful rebellion of men. So there is the clash to be remembered. And then there's also the possibility of communication cooperation. And that is made possible by the inconsistency between the unbelievers principle and practice. By the fact that he's suppressing his natural knowledge of God. And thirdly, by the work of the spirit restraining his rebellion. Well, we didn't get to number four today. We'll take that up right away as we begin Wednesday afternoon. Thank you.