""/
Apologetics, Christian Faith

Martin Luther’s Appeal to ‘Scripture and Plain Reason’

October 31, 2017

A revolution

Just over 500 years ago, Martin Luther helped begin a revolution when his Ninety-Five Theses were nailed to the wall of Wittenberg chapel. I proudly stand in that theological tradition along with many other protestant reformers and revolutionaries. It is a tradition that values the Bible as a unique authority for our Christian beliefs. Luther threw off, among other things, the pronouncements of the papacy as equally or (perhaps functionally) more authoritative than Scripture.

I’m no Luther scholar. Let’s just get that out of the way. But I know enough to know he faced down fierce opposition at a time when one’s theological views could cost one one’s life and livelihood all because he became convinced Scripture was the authoritative Word of God.

When called upon to recant his revolutionary idea about the Bible, Luther gives one of his most famous lines:

Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason—I do not accept the authority of the popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other—my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me. Amen.

Philosophy as the devil’s whore

I’m certainly not on board with all of Luther’s beliefs, especially towards the end of his life when he expressed strong anti-Semitic sentiments.

When it comes to philosophy, let’s just say Luther also did not have the highest regard. In fact, he once called philosophy the “devil’s whore”! I’m not exactly sure what it means to be the devil’s whore, but he’s clearly not a fan. In light of this, many have argued that Luther believed philosophy was contrary to Christian faith. However, others have argued that Luther had not a low view of philosophy and reason, in general, so much as a low view of “secular” philosophy (i.e., philosophy that is not informed by Scripture and theology) standing as arbiter over revelation. On this view, philosophy played an important role, even though it would be, in a way, secondary to revelation as a handmaid in doing Christian theology.

Now we won’t settle Luther’s view on this issue here, but what’s worth noticing is Luther’s reference to reason in this famous passage. Luther couples Scripture and plain reason as his (epistemological) basis for his being captive to the Word of God. He seems to be saying that plain reason is as at least a possible source for what would cause him to change his views about Scripture’s unique authority. Notice too he points out that the deficient position of “the popes and councils” is that they have contradicted each other. He seems to be emphasizes the fact that he could not accept the authority of the popes and councils because when taken in whole, it was an irrational (i.e., contradictory) position. Here again his appeal is to reason.

Knowing that Scripture is authoritative

Sometimes Christians act as if they have simply received their view straight from Scripture and that reason plays no role. However, this is quite impossible. There is no way to read and interpret Scripture itself without the exercise of our reason in deciding on what the passage says and what it means. It takes reason to construct a coherent doctrine and systematize the various things we believe on the basis of Scripture. And it takes reason to apply these doctrines to our lives. Reason plays a role for all of our intellectual pursuits. Reason, for Luther, was able to lead us to what is and what isn’t a divine authority.

Does conceding the role of reason here take away from the authority of Scripture, etc. and put the authority instead on reason? No, I want to suggest it puts the authority of Scripture on a solid rational basis! Through reason we are arguing for the authority of Scripture. Let’s assume that Scripture is the divine authority. The problem is that a person doesn’t automatically know that it is the divine authority even when it is. It seems we’re going to need reasons to know it is the Word of God. Some of these reasons can come within the text, but this has a circularity worry if this is all we have. In other words, it can’t be authoritative only because it says so. The pope was also claiming to be authoritative in Luther’s day. All religious texts claim to be authoritative, in some sense or other. It seems we need to turn to matters outside of scripture that may provide support and a case for this belief.

Now once we come to the belief that scripture is authoritative, we have presumably figured out what this thing is. It is the divine revelation of God! It is the Word of God. It is a source of knowledge sufficient for all matters of life and godliness. Once we know what it is, we then make appeal to scripture as our ultimate authority…full stop. And we can say along with Luther, “Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason…my conscience is captive to the Word of God.”

 

""/
Apologetics, Christian Faith, Doubt

Jesus Thinks Evidence Helps Address Doubt

October 20, 2017

A Question

As John the Baptist sits in a jail cell, he sends a few of his students to ask Jesus a question. Here it is:

“Are you the one who is to come, or should we expect someone else?” (Matt. 11:3; see also Lk. 7:20)

It’s a striking question since, well, it’s John the Baptist asking the question. This is the one who, in his ministry, prepared the way for Jesus. At their first meeting (ex utero!), John the Baptist himself, in effect, confesses that Jesus is the one who is to come just before John baptizes him (John 1:29-34). One would have thought if anyone was confident Jesus was the promised Messiah, it would have been John the Baptist. But he’s not sure and he’s asking.

Embarrassing

It’s interesting that both Matthew and Luke record this story. It’s might be thought to be a bit embarrassing that not even John the Baptist is sure that Jesus is the Messiah. If the Gospel writers were trying to get people to believe Jesus is Messiah, then it would have made sense for them to leave this one out (just think how odd this story would have been to include if the Jesus mythicists are correct that Jesus never existed). But, as is usual (I would argue), the Gospel writers don’t attempt to avoid what’s embarrassing and there’s so often a deep lesson to be learned.

What’s going on?

What was going on here for John? What we know is that John is sitting in prison for publicly criticizing Herod Antipas and he will be beheaded soon enough. Given these dire circumstances, many have speculated John is at a very low point in his life. He is struggling. Despite the fact that he did the right thing, he is unjustly suffering for it. So the inference is this is causing John to doubt who Jesus is.

Now I’m not sure we can know the psychological states of John the Baptist. Is he downtrodden and struggling? The text doesn’t say. I know I’d be downtrodden and struggling in his situation. What we know is he’s asking. We know that he is unsure about Jesus. He’s clearly having some intellectual doubts.

Intellectual Doubt

What is intellectual doubt? It is when we experience an intellectual tension in our beliefs. What seems to happen is we begin to suspect a belief of ours may be wrong. Put another way, we feel the force or pull of some objection to one of our beliefs. It’s clear, by John’s earlier confession, he believed Jesus was the Messiah. At some point, he began to feel the pull of the idea that Jesus was not the guy and that perhaps they should be expecting someone else.

I have argued there is great value in experiencing times of intellectual doubt since, as we press in and investigate, we can be led to a greater faith. What becomes really interesting in this passage is Jesus’s reaction to John’s question.

Two Aspects of Jesus’s Reaction to John’s Doubt

First, he does not rebuke John’s questioning of him. This is important. I don’t recall one time when Jesus turns down an honest question. With John the Baptist, Jesus even goes to commend him as, in one sense, the greatest who has ever lived (Matt. 11:11; Lk. 7:28)! This is in the face of his doubting who Jesus is. So it seems okay to wonder. It’s okay to not be sure. There are other sorts of questions, often posed by Jewish religious leaders, where Jesus does rebuke. However, these are not genuine seekers and their questions aren’t designed to even get answers. When it comes to genuine seekers, Jesus welcomes.

Second, Jesus points at evidence as the answer to John’s question. The passage goes on:

[Jesus] replied to them, “Go and report to John what you hear and see: The blind receive their sight, the lame walk, those with leprosy are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the poor are told the good news, and blessed is the one who isn’t offended by me.” (vs. 22-23)

Notice Jesus does not merely tell John “the answer is, yes, I am the Messiah.” Who knows, this might have satisfied John. He also doesn’t tell John to just drum up more faith. He offers actual evidence to address John’s doubts.

What seems clear is that evidence helps our intellectual doubts. It may not solve everything going on in our hearts. I’m convinced that, for some, no amount of evidence is ever going to satisfy. This is because they are, like the Jewish religious leaders, not genuine seekers. I’m also convinced that if we approach open to have our questions addressed, there is a compelling case to be made.

""/
Apologetics, Christian Faith, Dialogue, Doubt

The Importance of an Open Mind that Closes

October 13, 2017

Minds Were Made to Shut

We typically think having an open mind is a good thing. And in certain situations, it certainly is a good thing. For example, we should have an open mind when we are beginning an inquiry. If we have no settled views on some matter, then it would be quite foolish to hold strongly to a particular view. We should be open to a variety of voices of authority on the matter as begin our inquiry.

But once we have settled our views about some matter, it seems our minds should shut. That is, once we have surveyed and evaluated the most plausible views on some matter, we need not and should not stay completely open minded any longer.

G.K. Chesterton once said:

An open mind is really a mark of foolishness, like an open mouth. Mouths and minds were made to shut; they were made to open only in order to shut. (Illustrated London News. October 10, 1908)

Open Mindedness as a Virtue?

When we begin to think carefully about open mindedness, we see that open mindedness, without qualification, is not a virtue. To remain completely open minded about p when we have good reason to believe p is, say, false is not acting with intellectual virtue. As evidence comes, then we should, in a sense, become more and more close minded.

Is it really okay to be close minded at times? Yes, because not all views are equally plausible, especially after some reasonable inquiry. If a view proves to be false or irrational, then it seems to be a good idea (and very normal) to foreclose on that view as a genuine possibility. After we have looked into the matter, we may not know exactly what view to hold, but we often know which views are clearly false.

Should We Ever Be Absolutely Close Minded?

Do we ever come to shut our minds completely and absolutely? Though it isn’t really implied by the Chesterton quote, my own view is that it should be very rare for our minds to shut completely and absolutely. That is, we should shut our minds on things we have reason to believe are true, but be willing reopen when countervailing evidence presents itself. This is because it is at least possible to be wrong about the things we believe. Again, we need not be completely open to any and all views given the evidence we possess, we should still listen to the most plausible opposing views in case we need to reopen in light of new evidence.

My Mind is Shut on Christianity

It was really important for me, in my Christian journey, to have an open mind about alternative views. I came to doubt my faith and the truth of Christianity. Consequently, I systematically considered as many relevantly different worldviews as I could. I had an open mind and tried to approach these without bias. In complete honesty, I found myself surprised at how badly supported nonchristian worldviews are compared to the support and evidence for Christianity, including atheism and even agnosticism. Most other worldviews do not even think in terms of evidence and objectivity. For example, one is hard pressed to find Buddhist apologetics these days! And it seems this is for good reason. There isn’t much for evidence for Buddhism as a worldview. When it came to atheism and agnosticism, there were far too many questions that these left unexplained. In fact, it has always seemed to me that atheism fails to explain the most important aspects of life.

My mind came to shut on Christianity. It would take quite a lot, at this point, to unseat my Christian intellectual commitments. It’s possible, but I don’t think it is likely. If Christianity is false, there should be plenty of evidence that presents itself in which case I would reconsider my commitments. But I’ve been at this pursuit for almost 20 years and the counter evidence is lacking. There are objections, but I find satisfying answers to these objections and then some.

So here I am, I have been completely open minded along the way and I’m willing to reconsider, but, at this point, I am shut on truth of the Christian way.

""/
Apologetics, Christianity

Religious Pluralism and the Myth of Inclusivity

October 4, 2017

Perhaps the most attractive part of Religious Pluralism (RP)—the notion there are many ways to God—is its supposed inclusivism. Religions are not exactly known for coming together on almost anything. If the major religions can come together under the big tent of RP, then this would be, it seems, a good thing. But is RP a big tent? Does it include a diversity of views? I think RP is no more inclusive than the exclusively exclusive Christian exclusivist.

Prof. John Hick

There are a variety of ways to understand RP. The most plausible version, I think, is John Hick’s.[1] It has the benefit of being logically coherent unlike many of the more simplistic forms of RP that say (literally) all religious views are correct (which is literally incoherent). By contrast, Hick actually argued that all religious views are strictly speaking false in terms of the particulars they defend. Religions, for Hick, attempt to describe the indescribable. Though he thought all religions are false, he wasn’t an atheist. He thought there was a terrific value in the major ancient religious traditions in that they each provide a way to God, or what Hick calls the Real. The Real is that indescribable transcendent reality all religions point us to. So when the Christian says that Jesus died on the cross and this provides the way to God. The Christian is wrong that it is Jesus’s death that provides the way to God. For Hick, Jesus is not God and nothing happened on the cross other than someone died. But being a follower of Jesus is a way the Real. It is the way that Christians get to the Real, but so do the practices of Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc.

Some people seem to think this lack of exclusivity is refreshing. But is this really inclusivism? The problem is that it is only inclusive in the sense we are all inclusively wrong in our particular narratives about salvation despite the fact it’s going to end up okay. But when we think carefully here, we’ll see that Hick’s beliefs are a set of exclusive truth claims themselves. There is not much that is truly plural about Hick’s pluralism.

To see this, consider the fact that Hick’s pluralism asserts that all of us religious folks are wrong in what we assert. That’s a lot of disagreement and falsehoods for a view labeled as pluralistic. Hick clearly believed that his view about the world was the one true view and he defended that view for decades. Pluralistic? No, it isn’t. Tolerant? Not really. Exclusive claim? Bingo! If you disagree with the pluralism, the pluralist will say that you are wrong. The pluralist believes that it is only she who has the full view of reality, and the rest of the world, both now and historically, is just simply wrong about what they believe religiously.

As it turns out, inclusivity is impossible. This is a consequence of the nature of a truth claim. Whenever we make a claim, we are claiming that it is true, and this implies that its contraries are all false. One can try to be perfectly inclusive, but it will always exclude whoever holds the contrary view. Imagine we assert the following view: “everyone, no matter what they believe, is right.” If anything is inclusive, this is it. But doesn’t this exclude everyone who says there are only some who are right? This extremely inclusive statement excludes all those who disagree (which, by the way, is almost everyone on the planet since probably no one believes this). The claim, though it seems inclusive, actually excludes everyone!

Anyone who makes a truth claim, given the nature of truth, is an exclusivist. Thus, if being exclusive is a problem, it is a problem for everyone! But there’s no reason to think that being exclusive, all by itself, is a problem. There seems to be no way to have meaningful dialogue without it. Let’s just stop pretending like we don’t disagree and then we can have thoughtful, loving and tolerant-but-sharp disagreement. This is very possible and far more meaningful.

[1] John Hick. An Interpretation of Religion (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989).

Recent Posts
Recent Comments
Archives
Categories
Meta
Welcome to my blog! ~Travis Dickinson, PhD
Recent Posts
Top Posts