Sunday 9 May 2010

Beware of Philosophy: A Warning To Biblical Scholars (Norman L Geisler)

I was encouraged by several friends who found my most recent posts (E J Young on “Some Thoughts on Old Testament Scholarship”) helpful to them. In line with these recent posts, I now include an extract of this article, “Beware of Philosophy: A Warning to Biblical Scholars” by Norman L Geisler. Geisler is no stranger to many of my age. At a time when evangelicalism was wading through uncertain waters, Geisler wrote profusely on apologetics, the inspiration of Scripture, and even made a rare foray into the Old Testament. Way before Josh McDowell popularised apologetics, Geisler was already a stalwart in defending the historicity of Scripture. I remember reading his books and finding a firm foundation for my faith in the trustworthiness of Scripture. He has continued to write and sometimes stingingly only because (as this article shows) he is genuinely concerned about the way in which many younger evangelical scholars are going about their “business”. In the first part of this article, published with the same title in the Journal of Evangelical Theological Society 42/1 (March 1999): 3-19, Geisler warned of the different kinds of philosophy which modern evangelical scholars are besotted (infatuated) with: naturalism, agnosticism, evolutionism, progressivism, existentialism, phenomenology, conventionalism, processism, Platonic allegorism, Ockhamistic nominalism, Aristotelianism, anthropological monism, and historical criticism. Having duly warned us (and I have no doubt he knows what he is talking about, having taught at two distinguished seminaries and now is Distinguished Professor of Apologetics at Veritas Evangelical Seminary, USA), he then informs us as to how we ought to beware of philosophy which is what I have posted here.

I find his warning and exhortation both timely and necessary, especially for me as I soon embark on the “business” of teaching full-time in a theological seminary. I share this in the same hope as my recent posts on Old Testament scholarship, that those of us who are preparing for the ministry – in our churches or seminaries or the mission field – will take to heart what Geisler has to say here.


________________________________

II. HOW TO BEWARE OF PHILOSOPHY: INTELLECTUAL AND SPIRITUAL ADVICE

I turn now to the final section of this discussion: “How to Beware of Philosophy.” My advice here is divided into two parts: intellectual and spiritual. First, some intellectual cautions to evangelical exegetes.

1 Avoid the Desire to Become a Famous Scholar. There seems to be an almost irresistible temptation among many scholars, particularly younger ones, to “make a name for themselves.” In biblical terms this is the sin of pride of which Holy Scripture warns us. Pride distorts our vision of the truth because it is the presumption to knowledge born of ignorance. It is humbling to remind ourselves that the apostle Paul explicitly exhorts us that though “I understand all mysteries and all knowledge... but have not love, I am nothing” (1 Cor 13:2). Scholarship should be used to build Christ’s spiritual kingdom, not to build an academic kingdom for one’s self.

St. Augustine surely identified the root problem when he wrote: “And what is the origin of our evil will but pride? For pride is the beginning of sin.”(53) St. Paul agreed when he warned against putting novices in positions of leadership (1 Tim 3:6). And the apostle John warned against the “pride of life” as one of our three basic sins (1 John 2:16).

2 Avoid the Temptation to Be Unique. My second piece of advice is closely associated with the first. It is this: Avoid the desire to be unique. The temptation to this form of pride seems to be endemic to the higher academic process. For by its very nature a doctoral dissertation is usually supposed to be an original contribution to knowledge. But if the scholar is to make a discovery that no one else has ever made, then it is an almost irresistible temptation to congratulate oneself for being the originator of this new truth. Little wonder the apostle warned us that “knowledge puffs up” but “love builds up” (1 Cor 8:1). The Scripture alerts us to the fact that the occupation of intellectuals on the modern academy is little different than that of those on the ancient Mars Hill who “spent their time in nothing else but either to tell or to hear some new thing” (Acts 17:21, emphasis added).

3 Do Not Dance on the Edges. My next bit of advice for evangelical exegetes is to avoid dancing on the edges. Do not see how far the borders of evangelicalism can be stretched to accommodate the latest scholarly fad. Do not flirt with the latest critical methodology. Some of our own ETS members have been caught in this trap. It would appear that Grant Osborne temporarily fell prey to this temptation when he claimed that Matthew expanded on Jesus’ supposedly original statement to baptize in his (Jesus’) name, turning it into the Trinitarian formula recorded in Matt 28:18–20.(54) Other biblical scholars, like J. Ramsey Michaels, went over the line of orthodoxy and declared that in some cases the Gospel writers created, not merely reported, the sayings of Jesus.(55)

The story is told of a king who lived on a narrow, winding mountain road edged by a steep cliff. When interviewing potential chauffeurs he was careful to ask how close they could get to the edge without falling over. The first driver claimed he could get within a foot with no problem. The second driver boasted of having the ability to drive within a few inches without endangering the king’s life. The last candidate said he would drive as far away from the edge as he possibly could. Which one do you think the king hired? The last one, of course. And his royal choice is good advice for biblical exegetes who seem to relish dancing on the edge of evangelical scholarship.

My next suggestion is this:

4 Steer Right to Go Straight. According to aeronautic experts, when a propeller-driven airplane takes off it naturally veers left unless it is steered right. Based on my observations of evangelical institutions and leaders over the past half century, it appears to me that the same principle applies. The only way to keep on the straight orthodox path is to keep turning to the right. Churches, schools, and even evangelical scholarship will naturally go left, unless they are deliberately turned to the right. The prevailing winds of doctrine blow against us. And if we are to resist them we must have a firm grip on the wheel of the Good Ship Evangelicalism and steer it to the right.

5 Do Not Trade Orthodoxy for Academic Respectability. One of the top leaders of a large Protestant denomination was once asked how his denomination drifted to the left. His analysis of the situation was brief but penetrating. He noted that they wanted accreditation for their schools. In order to attain this they needed academic respectability for their teachers. Thus, they sent them to some of the best graduate schools in the world. When they returned from these unorthodox institutions they brought with them academic respectability. Sadly, he added: "We achieved scholarly recognition. But we sacrificed our orthodoxy for academic respectability." But this is a trade that no evangelical should ever make. As evangelical scholars we must learn to bear, if necessary, the offense of being called "fundamentalists," "obscurantists," and theologically "dinosauric," along with the offense of the Gospel. In this regard, one cannot help but admire our colleague and brother Thomas Oden who proudly calls himself a "paleo-orthodox." Or the conviction and courage of Eta Linnemann who literally trashed her own works upon being converted to Christ and urged her students to do the same.

We must reject the temptation to believe "New is true." It is far more likely that "Old is gold." For truth stands the test of time, while recent error has not been around long enough to be tried in the balance and be found wanting.

6 Reject any Methodology Inconsistent with the Bible or Good Reason. Unfortunately, most evangelical biblical exegetes have not digested Etienne Gilson’s insightful volume, The Unity of Philosophical Experience. In it he demonstrates how one philosophy after another led those who embrace the wrong method into undesirable and even disastrous cul-de-sacs. The lesson for biblical exegetes is the same: Adopt a false methodology and it will lead logically to a wrong theology. How we do our exegesis will lead to what results we obtain from it. Exegetical methods are to their results what meat grinders are to meat: Bologna in, bologna out – no matter how finely it is ground. Biblical and theological methods are not metaphysically neutral. To believe so is to be a candidate for the Colossian warning: “Beware of philosophy.”

I turn now to some spiritual advice for biblical exegetes. First and foremost,

1 Always Choose Lordship Over Scholarship. One of our society’s noted members, the late Professor J. Barton Payne, told of a conversation he had with a negative Bible critic who denies the creation of Adam and Eve, the Noahic Flood, Jonah in the Great Fish, one Isaiah, the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, and other orthodox beliefs. When Professor Payne pointed out that Jesus had personally affirmed all of these in the Gospels, his liberal friend shockingly replied: “Well, I know more about the Bible than Jesus did”! This is a clear example of putting scholarship over Lordship. If Jesus was the Son of God (which the New Testament confirms he was), then whatever he affirmed about the Old Testament is absolutely true. Indeed, Jesus claimed divine authority for his teaching (Matt 28:18–20). Since every true evangelical believes this, there should be no hesitation whenever there is a conflict to choose ancient Lordship over modern scholarship.

Several years ago, I wrote the author of a commentary on Jonah from a good evangelical school who had declared in it that it was not necessary to take Jonah literally. After pointing out that Jesus took it literally in Matt 12:40–42, I asked him if it was necessary for us as believers in Christ to believe what Jesus taught. Surprisingly, he had apparently not considered this, and the statement was subsequently retracted.

2 Do Not Allow Morality to Determine Methodology. One of our respected members, Henry Krabbendam, said it boldly and bluntly when he pointed out that when one departs from the faith by adopting a wrong methodology it is usually one of two reasons: “First, it is possible that an apostate methodology arises from an apostate heart. Second, it is possible that an apostate methodology to a greater or lesser extent has slipped into the thinking of a man who is otherwise committed to Christ.”(56) Whatever the case, in the words of the apostle Paul, those who fall prey have failed to “destroy arguments and every proud obstacle against the knowledge of God and bring every thought captive to Christ” (2 Cor 10:5). Herein stands the great challenge of the Christian scholar: not only to live Christocentrically but to think Christocentrically – a task that is forcefully set forth in the excellent work by J. P. Moreland titled Love Your God with All Your Mind.

3 Do Not Allow Sincerity to be a Test of Orthodoxy. In spite of this radical departure from orthodoxy noted earlier, Benedict Spinoza, the grandfather of modern negative biblical criticism, insisted on his biblical fidelity, declaring, “I am certified of this much: I have said nothing unworthy of Scripture or God’s Word, and I have made no assertions which I could not prove by the most plain arguments to be true. I can, therefore, rest assured that I have advanced nothing which is impious or even savours of impiety.”(57) This reminds one of Fuller Seminary’s defense for keeping Paul Jewett on their faculty after he denied the inerrancy of the Bible by claiming that the apostle Paul was wrong in what he affirmed in 1 Cor 11:3. After examining Jewett’s views carefully for an extended period of time, they decided to retain him on the faculty because he sincerely believed his view was orthodox and because he had faithfully taught at Fuller for many years.(58) Since when did sincerity and longevity become the test for orthodoxy!

III. CONCLUSION

In the final analysis, preserving orthodoxy is not a purely intellectual matter. It is spiritual warfare. “For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms” (Eph 6:12). The enemy of our soul wants also to deceive our minds. He desires to destroy good teaching which leads to good living. By undermining our orthodoxy he can weaken our “orthopraxy.” So we need to take on the whole armor of God in order to withstand the wiles of the Wicked One. It is noteworthy that this armor includes among other things the wide belt of truth which holds the rest of the armor together (Eph 6:10–18).

In brief, my conclusion is this: We cannot properly beware of philosophy unless we be aware of philosophy. To use a medical analogy, the person most likely to catch a disease is the one who does not understand it and thus takes no precautions against it. After all, doctors do not wear gloves and masks to hide warts and moles. One of the most serious problems for evangelical exegetes is that many are not philosophically sophisticated. They are not trained to snoop out alien presuppositions lurking beneath the surface of their discipline. In short, many evangelical exegetes have not taken time to be aware of philosophy and, hence, do not known how to fulfill Paul’s admonition to “beware of philosophy.”

It is of more than passing interest to note the conservative influence of philosophically trained, committed evangelical schools. In addition to names already mentioned, I list among them the members of our own Evangelical Philosophical Society, including David Beck, Frank Beckwith, David Clark, Winfried Corduan, Douglas Geivett, and Gary Habermas. William Craig deserves special mention, since he did master’s and doctoral work not only in philosophy but also in New Testament and theological studies. Younger scholars like these, with their orthodox theological commitment and philosophical sophistication, are in a position to avoid the theological errors into which philosophically untrained biblical scholars too often fall. Error, even serious error, is a very subtle thing. The reason for this was fingered by Irenaeus when he noted that “Error, indeed, is never set forth in its naked deformity, lest being thus exposed, it should at once be detected. But it is craftily decked out in an attractive dress, so as by its outward form, to make it appear to the inexperienced... more true than truth itself.”(59) Thus we need to be alert both spiritually and philosophically to avoid it.

Speaking of being philosophically informed, the immortal words of Plato are applicable to biblical exegetes as well. In Book V of the Republic Plato wrote, “Unless... either philosophers become kings in our state or those who we now call our kings and rulers take to the pursuit of philosophy seriously and adequately, and there is a conjunction of these two things, political power and philosophical intelligence,... there can be no cessation of troubles... for our states, nor I fancy for the human race either.”(60) Applying this thought to the topic at hand, I would urge that: Unless either philosophers become biblical exegetes in our schools or those who we now call biblical exegetes take to the pursuit of philosophy seriously and adequately, and there is a conjunction of these two things, biblical exegesis and philosophical intelligence, there can be no cessation of theological troubles for our schools, nor I fancy for the Christian church either.

________________

(53) St. Augustine, The City of God, 14.13, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church (ed. Philip Schaff, 14 vols., 1st series, 1886–94; repr. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1952).

(54) Grant Osborne’s first article where he claimed Matthew expanded Jesus’ original monadic baptismal formula (in Matt. 28:18–20) into a triadic Trinitarian one is in JETS 19/2 (1976): 73– 85 titled “Redaction Criticism and the Great Commission: A Case Study Toward a Biblical Understanding of Inerrancy.” Osborne’s redaction of his view is found in JETS 21/2 (June 1978): 117–130.

(55) See J. Ramsey Michaels, Servant and Son: Jesus in Parable and Gospel (Atlanta: John Knox, 1981).

(56) Norman L. Geisler, Inerrancy (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1980) 445.

(57) Benedict de Spinoza, A Theologico-Political Treatise 166.

(58) In the exact words of the Committee, “The Committee, while maintaining its disagreements with and regret of some portions of Man as Male and Female, which appear to question the authority of the Apostle Paul, recommends that the Seminary take no other action in the light of Dr. Jewett’s proven integrity, his long-standing contribution to the upholding and teaching of the biblical faith at Fuller, and his reassurance of loyalty to the Fuller doctrinal standards.” “Ad Hoc Committee Charities Relationship Between Paul K. Jewett’s Man as Male and Female and the Seminary Statement of Faith,” Theology News and Notes, published for the Fuller Theological Seminary Alumni (Special Issue, 1976) 21.

(59) Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1.2, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers (ed. Rev. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989) Vol. 1.

(60) Plato, Republic 5.473d, in The Collected Dialogues of Plato (ed. Edith Hamilton and Huntington Cairns; Pantheon Books, 1964).