One of the foremost of jobs postmodern philosophers have given themselves is the task of clarifying more obscure uses of language. This remains something of the "holy grail" of the analytic school of philosophy, whose charter reads: "Now these three remain: faith, hope and clarity -- and the greatest of these ...." (you know the rest).
Among Christian "apologetes" Dr. Van Til is well-known for his probing insights into the nature of the apologetic situation -- what each party does and does not in fact know, and how this comes about, given the light of nature and the teaching of all the word of God -- and the fundamental character of worldviews as they interact in such a contest.
Many of his insights are nothing short of breathtaking. But much controversy has surrounded several of his teachings in part because he writes not only like a philosopher (using far too many abstractions linked by far too many verb forms of "to be"), but he writes like a Dutch philosopher, with English as his second language. Then also the conceptual difficulties concerning the theologically mature topics about which he concerns himself, and his cutting edge efforts add their own technical language to the already difficult linguistic mix.
The topic of which I write today, I believe represents an actual conceptual error on Dr. Van Til's part, not merely a linguistic or stylistic problem, stemming from the above considerations. And the topic comprises an extremely important point to those concerned with biblical and theological accuracy regarding the Lord and His holy attributes.
Dr. VanTil concerns himself often (quite understandably) with the way that the Christian God functions in the Word to explain why things appear as they do. He also wishes to contrast God in this role with the problems his absence in other worldviews itself generates for ultimate explanations. Now certainly VanTil does not mean to reduce God to some mere explanatory principle, for God is far more than this. But He is not less than One who explains Himself to us.
The sovereign Lord of all has decreed by his revelation that He has been pleased to explain what we might call the "cosmic situation" also, which answers all the major philosophical and theological questions -- uniquely, consistently, and thoroughly (though not comprehensively) --like no other. We know much about God, and we know it with certainty; for the contrary is logically impossible. But we do not know everything about any one thing.
In affirming that explanations of facts much eventually have a final resting place (in every worldview) -- the final authority to which one appeals in explaining and proving anything -- He often avers to this fact thus:
"God is the only 'brute fact' in the cosmos," or in some similar fashion. Other times, he waxes a bit more eloquent saying that "God remains the final point of reference in all human explanation." At other times, it is well to note that VanTil refers to facts (similarly to Thomas Kuhn's "theory-ladenness of all facts") as having no one example of a "brute fact," since facts do not come with their own explanations, but are interpreted in light of other facts (all facts are facts "in-relation" says he), and these in turn obtain their significance only in light of a larger frame of reference notoriously dubbed the "world-view."
Dr. VanTil was a deliberate systematician in his philosophical explorations. Thus, it would simply violate the principle of charity to assume that his two claims, "There are no brute facts," and "God is the only brute fact," are somehow in conflict. Given the rest of his teachings, it remains fairly clear that Dr. VanTil meant to say, "Other than the final reference point in all human explanation -- the God of the Bible -- there are no brute facts." Just so, the Bible itself often states blanket principles, only to modify or qualify them shortly after or elsewhere (as with the commandment, "You shall not kill" -- which less than one chapter later receives the attending modifications or attentuations God intended all along, but chose to state in an orderly fashion just so. (This is a common Hebraic convention followed in both Testaments.).
But I yet hold that this way of asserting God's finality in ending disputes -- for God's Word necessarily has final authority in all matters upon which it speaks -- produces a conceptual problem worth exploring.
The phrase, "Brute fact(s)" throughout VanTil's writings usually carries the connotation of something that has in fact no explanation, but which does the explaining (as a final point of reference and justification of claims) of all other facts, events, phenomena, processes, persons, behaviors and the like (what we wake up to in the morning).
The term "brute" suggests an unexplained something that has no superior or higher authority that can or does explain that to which one so refers. "It is 'just there,' so to speak. But God does not function this way in the Christian worldview, and so the term proves quite misleading. There is nothing "brute" about God in the sense of being "just that way," which does not receive some attention in the Holy Scripture. Put differently, we know SOMETHING from the Bible and the light of nature about ALL of God's glorious attributes, for the Bible is sufficient.
Thus, God is not UN-explained, but SELF-explained as the final reference point of all human reasoning. If it were otherwise, all would devolve in mystery, and knowledge would be impossible. God explains just who He is, and declares that 'Knowledge of the Holy One IS understanding." And we learn this knowledge from God Himself.
God is thus self-authorized to speak (for Himself about Himself), and the Word teaches that the heavens therefore "DECLARE" (i.e. expound, proclaim, explain) the glory of God (Psalm 119:6-7). Thus, also spake the Lord Jesus about Himself, saying "take my yoke upon you and learn of me, for I am gentle and humble in heart..." God's explanation about both Himself and the world necessarily suffices for His people to know Him and walk with him in righteousness, subduing the world to the glory of its Maker and Redeemer, as God has commanded us.
Thus, contrary to VanTil, we must DISTINGUISH God from all "brute facts," while yet affirming that He remains the final Judge of all matters of knowledge, and the "final point of reference in all human reasoning." Just because of the latter, we must deny any such "brute-ness" -- unexplained existence -- about God. This is not to deny that God is mysterious in his counsel or eternal decree, or to suggest that anything about Him can be fully and finally known by us.
God is infinite and eternal. This necessarily requires mystery to some aspects of His being. His wisdom is unfathomable, but openly declared (made plain so that men are without excuse). And we can be wise (analogously to God) as God is wise -- just nothing like to the same degree. But the difference is a difference of degree, not of kind.
For God's wisdom -- though mysterious in its extent and insurpassable glory -- is a COMMUNICABLE attribute of God. Even the ants have wisdom from God to a certain degree. God's wisdom is original, and ours remains totally dependent upon His (for without Him we can do nothing, nor can we know anything at all apart from His self-disclosure in revelation). Yet some men are wise (for many prophets were full of wisdom and of the Holy Spirit, as it says of Stephen the martyr also, and most of all, it says so of the Lord Jesus, who is -- not was -- truly a man). "For there IS but one God, and one mediator between God and man, the MAN Christ Jesus" (1 Tim. 2:5). Doubtless, this text was written long after the resurrection of Christ from the dead, and it proclaims His real humanity in the present tense, just as He also appears in the Revelation, as well to his disciple (the eleven and then to Peter also).
A brute fact yet requires explaining, while God has already explained and declared who He is, as it was from the beginning. By way of sum then, I wish to say that although VanTil's use of the phrase "brute fact," properly conveys (denotes) the idea that explaining needs a final resting place in order to avoid an endless chain of authorities (ad infinitum ad nauseum) -- which would explain nothing at all -- and that the God of the Bible alone provides this final arbitration and interpretation in all His holy Word -- yet his CONNOTATION by that phrase that God remains somehow "unexplained" -- rather than sufficiently self-explained, remains an important error that needs correcting, since it implies the total loss of knowledge with respect to its connotation by the use of ordinary language.
Brute facts in VanTil's own lexicon represent facts yet to be explained, which depend on a surrounding field of reference -- outside the thing explained -- for the true explanation of their existence and proper function. This cannot be the case with God. For God is sovereign, and His Word IS the Truth necessarily. God is independent from His creation, and needs no one to help Him explain who He is, and what He has done.
We must find a better -- more biblical and precise -- way to speak of God -- in whom are hid all the treasures of Wisdom and knowledge, with respect to His ultimate authority to "tell it like it is," as we say colloquially. In order to avoid great confusion -- the difference between total mystery and some mystery (i.e. some revealed knowledge, but not total revelation), we have need of greater care in speaking of the Holy One.
For God has not authorized us to imply (or connote) about Him what is not consistent with all His Word. The irony here, is then, that just BECAUSE God's authority is final, we may not speak in conceptually muddled (misleading or mistaken) terms about Him. For God Himself does not so speak. He speaks clearly and with rigorous (indeed unfathomable) logical consistency regarding all His attributes, words and deeds.
What then shall we say of Him to avoid such misleading suggestions? First, it seems out of character to refer to God (in any context) as a "fact," for such a reference degrades and depersonalizes Him. Facts are objects, not persons -- again by ordinary language use. We should stick with the more prolific and lively metaphors the Bible itself uses, in speaking of God as the final Judge or Arbiter, or even as the ultimate Pastor (Shepherd) of His sheep; and the Lord Jesus is a "preacher of righteousness" in the assembly who has not failed to declare God's righteousness, or to sing God's praises (the Psalms do both simultaneously in the singing of them, and this is the point of the biblical prophecy of Christ singing God's praise in the midst of the assembly).
The Lord -- as one greater than Solomon -- is the Preacher (or Teacher) of righteousness, the final prophet, High priest (for the priests were teachers) and King of his people. The lips of a king speak as an oracle -- rendering the final verdict in a nation over which he rules, just as did the prophets (oracles) in Israel. So the point of final reference in all human reasoning may be said better as simply "King of wisdom" or "Lord of knowledge," the final Judge in all matters of every field of knowledge, upon which the Scripture touches explicitly or by the implications of the many possible combinations of all the Scriptures (properly interpreted) -- which seem almost innumerable. Granted, there are many synonymous ways to say such things in the English language. But the further we diverge from the biblical metaphors, the greater care we must take not to imply or connote what the biblical metaphors and pictures never intended. Such metaphors are there for good reasons.
As a final point intended to help people wrestle well with all manner of ideas to be taken captive to the knowledge of Christ, it comes all too easily to stray into technical, overly-complex and "philosophical" language when speaking of the Lord of Glory in this or that apologetic context. We must self-consciously work to avoid this. The language of philosophical reasoning (or logical analysis) must never be allowed to move us to speak irreverently or casually about the Great King. For a man speaks from the overflow of the heart. And we must keep God's Name holy at all times, especially in the context of debate, where the verbal attributions of Christians will be taken as representative of the Bible.
God is not a fact; He is not an argument or explanation. He is not a principle to be discussed, nor may we handle His reputation in such ways that pagans are wont to do when speaking of Him. I do not believe this is a pedantic point, but of the more important --weightier matters -- of rational debate (which must also be ethical for the Christian).
The best way to do this, is to mimic the language of the Lord Jesus, the apostles and prophets when THEY speak of God when disputing with their many opponents. We must say what the Lord says regarding Himself, not what Aristotle prefers, what David Hume likes, or in the jargon of some contemporary school of thought today fashionable and tomorrow obsolete.
Now we do have authority to speak of God also the way the creedal and confessional statements of the Church do also (a secondary, but real, authority, which is from above -- also called "the pillar and ground of Truth" in the Word), but even here I would suggest that one at least COMPARE the language of these to the Word, so that he remains better aware of just WHY the Church found it necessary to speak of the Lord as She has done. Thus may we better use such language appropriately (skillfully), and with discretion consistent with the Holy requirements of God's Word.
But now the Word of the Lord stands forever. And -- once again -- the Bible has the answer. How then ought we to speak of God in debate? We must speak as God speaks of Himself -- when His inspired representatives (the apostles and prophets) speak of Him in apologetic contexts. For who knows better than the King of Wisdom how to win debates, and God's favor, at the same time. Just as it says, "Good understanding wins favor." And again, "the answer of the tongue is from the Lord."
Presumably, Christians who engage in debate for the glory of God seek the advance of His kingdom. But the phrase, "Thy kingdom come" is preceded by "May Your Name be kept holy." The point cannot be made better by any other than the Lord who has said it.
But here, Dr. VanTil's point remains finally indisputable: The law of the Lord is perfect, and constitutes the Final Word on language, knowledge and wisdom. And the contrary is impossible.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment