The Philosophy of James White
Those that would have me leave the Roman Catholic Church have linked me several articles from James White, of Alpha and Omega Ministries. I am concerned for him. He seems to be very anti-philosophy. Or rather, he doesn't like it when Theology takes a backseat to Philosophy. Why this is so, I'm not sure. He might say because it's not Biblical, but there are problems.
What does it mean, exactly, to say something is not Biblical? 2+2=4 is not found in the Bible, so is it not Biblical? If you want to say yes, then there is nothing wrong with adhering to something that is not Biblical.
If by not Biblical, however, you mean to say it is anti-Biblical, that is, the Bible has some statement that contradicts some other held belief, like God does not exist, then okay.
So, which is of these two, and these two seem like the two more likely candidates of the pool of explanations, does Theology taking a back seat to Philosophy fall under? If it is the first, not a big deal. If it is the second, I would like to see some citations.
Now, whatever he may point to, he has to make sure it doesn't commit this mistake, to infer that because Theology has a role, therefore, Philosophy doesn't. Philosophy does have a job to do, and when Philosophy does that job, Theology sits quiet. This simply follows. Consider the denial. To deny that philosophy has no job. Is that a bullet willing to be bitten? I think not. If Philosophy has a purpose, then let it do its work.
But it is not the later option that seems likely. It really seems like White doesn't like any intersection (he calls it a filter, but they are essentially the same) between Philosophy and Theology. He calls it Unbiblical, but as we have shown, calling it unbiblical is just rhetoric. In fact, you cannot have any comprehension of anything Biblical without having some Philosophy first.
An example. Logic is a discipline of philosophy. If Christianity were incoherent or self-contradictory, then no one ought to be a Christian. But we're Christians. So, we adhere to these philosophical principles first, before we can do anything concerning Theology. Logic is logically prior to anything else w do or experience.
Another example. A philosophy of nature. We see the connection between cause and effect. Men sink. Men die and stay dead. When one sees man walking on water or coming back from the dead, we see that it does not adhere to our regular senses of nature. We therefore infer a miracle. But before we can detect miracles, we have to have a philosophy of nature set down first. So again, philosophy is logically prior to theological information and assessments.
As Max Andrews has pointed out, if one is going to dismiss a philosophical point as unbiblical, then they are committing a category error. The Bible is not the only source of truth, but you would not know that reading James White.
What does it mean, exactly, to say something is not Biblical? 2+2=4 is not found in the Bible, so is it not Biblical? If you want to say yes, then there is nothing wrong with adhering to something that is not Biblical.
If by not Biblical, however, you mean to say it is anti-Biblical, that is, the Bible has some statement that contradicts some other held belief, like God does not exist, then okay.
So, which is of these two, and these two seem like the two more likely candidates of the pool of explanations, does Theology taking a back seat to Philosophy fall under? If it is the first, not a big deal. If it is the second, I would like to see some citations.
Now, whatever he may point to, he has to make sure it doesn't commit this mistake, to infer that because Theology has a role, therefore, Philosophy doesn't. Philosophy does have a job to do, and when Philosophy does that job, Theology sits quiet. This simply follows. Consider the denial. To deny that philosophy has no job. Is that a bullet willing to be bitten? I think not. If Philosophy has a purpose, then let it do its work.
But it is not the later option that seems likely. It really seems like White doesn't like any intersection (he calls it a filter, but they are essentially the same) between Philosophy and Theology. He calls it Unbiblical, but as we have shown, calling it unbiblical is just rhetoric. In fact, you cannot have any comprehension of anything Biblical without having some Philosophy first.
An example. Logic is a discipline of philosophy. If Christianity were incoherent or self-contradictory, then no one ought to be a Christian. But we're Christians. So, we adhere to these philosophical principles first, before we can do anything concerning Theology. Logic is logically prior to anything else w do or experience.
Another example. A philosophy of nature. We see the connection between cause and effect. Men sink. Men die and stay dead. When one sees man walking on water or coming back from the dead, we see that it does not adhere to our regular senses of nature. We therefore infer a miracle. But before we can detect miracles, we have to have a philosophy of nature set down first. So again, philosophy is logically prior to theological information and assessments.
As Max Andrews has pointed out, if one is going to dismiss a philosophical point as unbiblical, then they are committing a category error. The Bible is not the only source of truth, but you would not know that reading James White.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteSince there is a word limit on responses I’ll make this a 2 part response artificially)
ReplyDeleteAdrian, you may or may not realize that scripture itself claims that Christ is the source for "all treasures of wisdom and knowledge" Col 2:3. The reason folks like myself criticize philosophy that is imposed on theology is that we ought to be coming to scripture with minimal philisophical assumptions, especially about doctrine. The Max Andrews blog is discussing Molinism in particular and James White has thoroughly documented on his site aomin.com that he doesn't believe the Molinistic position brings minimal assumptions to the table and is thus not extracted faithfully from scripture or grounded in scripture. To use a critique that Molinism posits that Molinism is a philosophy constructed not from exegesis but is impressed onto scripture and processes scripture to mean that White is against philosophy is just simply dishonest and absurd and is in itself a “category error”. White isn’t against philosophy as has been asserted and I’m sure he would tell you that if you took the time to ask. Since the scriptures claim that Christ is the source of ALL treasures of wisdom and knowledge then we cannot truly have knowledge, Biblically speaking, unless that knowledge is grounded in Christ. How do we obtain knowledge about Christ? Through the scriptures, which attest to Christ. (One may quote Romans as a prooftext of natural theology but Paul makes it clear that 2 specific things are made clear in general revelation – God’s eternality and his divinity – nothing more. Those are the only 2 things that “can be known”). The more assumptions we bring to the table to interpret scripture the greater the chance for interpretational unsoundness and error. So the point that reformed people like James White are attempting to get across is that because it increases the chance for error to impose upon scripture or to use in interpretation of Scripture more than ultimately basic and necessary bedrock philosophical assumptions about God and reality to the table when studying scripture it is unsound and unbiblical. Again if Christ holds ALL treasures of knowledge and wisdom as the logos spoken of in Genesis it means that we cannot truly know anything about God without an accurate understanding of Christ. So far as we are inaccurate about Christ our knowledge is inaccurate and simply vain philosophy and thus the philosopher who stars with a foundation outside of Christ robs himself of knowledge, wisdom and thus understanding .
Hey,
DeleteI do realize that. Truth is grounded in the nature of God. But that's exactly the point to be made. If you find truth in philosophy, it's okay to apply it to other sources of knowledge, including theology. It doesn't matter if it's minimal or maximal, it just has to be appropriate. If you grant philosophy is a mode of coming to truth, then it's strange to say we need a minimal amount of this kind of truth when discussing theology. Why wouldn't you want as much as you could have?
Considering what he's written in the link provided, it really does sound like he's against philosophy per se. I agree that sounds absurd, but that says something about White than anything else. Now, I'm sure if asked, he would qualify it. I don't know how, but I doubt he'll be reading this, and I tried to sign up for his forums but that was too complicated lol so I doubt I'll have a chance to ask.
Now, having agreed that Christ is the grounding of truth, I disagree with you that scripture is the only way we learn about him. (I see you acknowledge the point in Romans. Cool. But it's a non-sequitur to say that because it mentions only those two aspects of God, therefore, only those aspects are available.) The project of natural theology has made tremendous progress of knowledge about God, or do you deny that? It's no coincidence the Greeks, like Plato and Aristotle, influenced the Church and her language. Also, you wouldn't say those who can't read can't know anything about Christ. But then, you subscribe to solar scriptura, so maybe... :-P
Also, many would deny Molinism is an assumption. Max Andrews linked his whole directory. Flint, Craig, etc., argue for its justification, both on philosophical grounds and scriptural. But even if it were only justified philosophically, would you still call that an assumption? Remember, if it's true, it's true no matter how it's justified. And that's the goal, truth.
Since Christ is the logos and the universe was created through him and for him we can be confident that through his providence we can know anything through making scripture (his word) sufficiently knowable and understandable (enough to sufficiently know him). Indeed the Bible does not say that philosophy is unbliblical, but philosophy that is not based upon and derived from the Word of God himself as explicitly stated in the Colossians passage. Prov 2:10-11, Prob 1:1-7, James 1:5, 1 Kings 5:3-12, Psa 119:66 attest to the fact that knowledge comes from God. Nothing in scripture indicates anything else. Even nature is designed in such a way as to impress on the conscience of man but is not designed for actual knowledge outside of a Christ epistemology through scripture. We might ask what comes first - the chicken (philosophy) or the egg (actual understanding/interpretation of scripture). It seems clear most explicitly by the words of Paul that Since Christ is the source of ALL knowedge - and thus necessarily ANY knowledge - that men intuitively and inescapably presuppose Christ as Lord in order to even begin philosophy. It is therefore appropriate that our philosophical endeavors, biblically speaking, must consciously presuppose, be faithfully extracted from and based upon scripture itself. In previous conversations you stated you’ve read “The Universe Next Door”, what a thorough demonstration of the futility of supposedly neutral or antichristian philosophical systems that attempt find truth aside from presupposing Christ and honoring him by extracting knowledge and wisdom from the scriptures. Christ states in Matt 12:30 that if you are not for him then you are against him. There is no moral neutrality or neutral presuppositions. For an in depth teaching on the myth of neutrality: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHRz-M6EVN8
ReplyDeleteWhy does Paul unequivocally declare that Christ is the source of all wisdom and knowledge? He answers that question: "I say this in order that no one may delude you with plausible arguments". What are these "plausible arguments" he speaks of? Well he was indeed writing to the Corinthians. Why is that significant? Corinth was in Greece, the Greeks were well known for their wisdom and reasoning. This passage is directly addressing supposedly neutral and plausible epistemological arguments that seek to find truth. The problem made clear in scripture is that reasoning/philosophy not presuppositionally based on and in Christ, that is, starting with what is revealed about Christ in scripture (even coinciding with the limitations of general revelation) - does not produce knowledge/wisdom/understanding and in this case it is clear that reasoning outside of the Christ-epistemology will "lead astray" the man of God, the living stones.