Being one who is philsophically interested...

…I had to buy this book – no offense intended by the language…but this is a real book written by a philosopher published by Princeton Univ Press. The product description is interesting to say the least. "On BS" by Harry G. Frankfurt Obviously the title is a take off of St. Augustine’s book "On Lying" We may not choose his words to describe this phenomenon, but we all know this phenomenon all too well. By God's grace may we not be those who intentionally falsify (liars) or ones who "quietly change the rules governing their end of the conversation so that claims about truth and falsity are irrelevant" (what Frankfurt is calling Bull Feces). Out

--------

The Songs of Peter Singer

A rather long discussion going on at the Evangelical Outpost surrounding the so-called ethics of Peter Singer. This is the same guy who has endorsed bestiality (see article in the Daily Princetonian) in some cases... Some good advice at the end of the article:

But Singer is trying to push the envelope. In his world of extremes, if bestiality can be pushed into philosophical discourse, then the debate over whether Boy Scouts should have gay scout leaders or over San Francisco's new sex-change policy for municipal employees starts to seem quaint. If he busies mainstream Americans with trying to put out brush fires like this one on our left fringe, then the long, slow burn in the center of the culture war becomes less relevant. It becomes almost...normal. And that's what radicals like Singer want.

We should know what guys like this are saying, but we should continue to advocate the good, the right and the true with our intellectual efforts - and not only chase around arguments of people advocating bizarre things. Use him as "Exhibit A" perhaps, but focus on why the life of babies matter, what life is, when it begins, why it is valuable... Out...

--------

Who is Behind the Storms?

This Wednesday Night I heard someone answer a question associated with the God’s relationship to natural disasters (violent storms, earthquakes, etc.) The obvious concern was God’s involvement or lack thereof with events like the recent tsunami disaster in Asia. The statement was made in reference to Jesus calming the storm in the gospels (we will look at the account in Mark 4:35-41). The argument went sort of like this:

1. Jesus “rebukes” the wind and the waves, If God the Father was the “cause” of the storm, Jesus would be in effect “rebuking the work of God”
2. The rebuke is personal in nature “Peace, Be Still!” so it must not have been directed at nonpersonal things like “wind and waves”
3. Therefore a personal agency, other than God, who could control the forces of nature was at play…the inference from here was that it was demonic forces at work

Now we usually would think of natural events having the following causes. These are the usual options offered:

• God is directly causing such things as weather patterns
• Some other personal agency – perhaps of nefarious character – like demons, is be behind such natural events - especially when they are destructive
• Nobody is behind this, God is not causing the normal course of nature which happens according natural law

How do these options accord with the Biblical witness? Let us first look at each in turn.

• First, the Bible clearly teaches that God is at times directly behind weather (Ps 148:1-8, Ps 135:7, Job 37:6–13).
• Second, although it is not clear, it does appear that the forces of darkness can use natural phenomena to wreak havoc on the earth (Job 1,2) Although this power may simply be derivative from divine providence.
• Finally what of option that “Nobody” causes natural events? While it is quite true that there are certain physical laws at work in natural phenomena (plate tectonics, the mantle pressing upward on portions of he earth's crust, pressure and temperature differentials in the atmosphere) a world in which God has nothing to do with the course of nature is foreign to the Biblical witness. It is the world of deistic belief which God exercises no active control in the courses of nature. The Biblical God however, upholds the universe by the word of his power (Heb 1:3) and in Him all things hold together (Col 1:17). Now the normal course of Providence is that the universe operates according to regularities created by God. The operation of such natural processes is a normal Providence, but providence nonetheless, for indeed the design of nature was itself the work of God. So even the natural laws are derivative from the design of God. It is my belief that most natural phenomenon are of this species - caused by the normal mode of Providence - the design of nature which is directed by the mind of God.

Now to the argument that it must have been demonic forces behind the storm in Mark 4:35-41. We would do well to have the text before us:

35 On that day, when evening had come, he said to them, “Let us go across to the other side.” 36 And leaving the crowd, they took him with them in the boat, just as he was. And other boats were with him. 37 And a great windstorm arose, and the waves were breaking into the boat, so that the boat was already filling. 38 But he was in the stern, asleep on the cushion. And they woke him and said to him, “Teacher, do you not care that we are perishing?” 39 And he awoke and rebuked the wind and said to the sea, “Peace! Be still!” And the wind ceased, and there was a great calm. 40 He said to them, “Why are you so afraid? Have you still no faith?” 41 And they were filled with great fear and said to one another, “Who then is this, that even wind and sea obey him?” - Mark 4:35-41 (ESV)

Now to the argument with each part taken in turn:

Jesus “rebukes” the wind and the waves, If God the Father was the “cause” of the storm, Jesus would be in effect “rebuking the work of God”

Is it the case that if a rebuke was aimed at the wind and the sea that the cause of the storm could not have been God. This dilemma is solved quite easily. Another option would be that God the Father and God the Son were working in concert to demonstrate something of the Son’s nature – that he indeed had the power to calm physical storms on the seas. It could very well have been God’s plan to bring a storm SO THAT the Son could rebuke it, demonstrating that just a word from the Son would calm the winds and the stormy waters. Let us use an illustration from baseball to further make the point. Say for instance that God wanted to show off the fact that Jesus was the best hitter of baseballs in the universe. He could throw the most ridiculously hard to hit pitches to the best hitters in the world all day long, striking each of them out in turn. Now, up steps Jesus to the plate and God throws the same pitches. This time, one by one, Jesus knocks them out of the park. Was Jesus thwarting the pitches of his Father? Or was there a demonstration of the powers of the Son? I think the scenario that God brought the storm of Mark 4, most likely through normal providence, so that Jesus would rebuke it publicly in front of the disciples. Now could the storm be of demonic origin? I suppose it is possible, but not because God as the cause was “ruled out” by Jesus “rebuking” a storm.

The rebuke is personal in nature “Peace, Be Still!” so it must not have been directed at non-Personal things like “wind and waves”

The second premise is not so certain either. Many times in the Biblical witness we see God commanding non-personal things. The stars are said to be “led out by God” and that he “calls them each by name.” (Is 40:26, Ps 147:4); In the temptation of Jesus in Matt 4, the devil seems to think that it is well within Jesus’ power to “command stones to become bread” – a situation where speaking to a non-personal object. Jesus says during his triumphal entry to Jerusalem that “If the people did not praise him, the rocks would do so in their place” – Whether or not this means a literal rock choir would have broken out in song is irrelevant, the fact remains that “God commanding non-personal things to do, become, etc.” is not a rare thing in the Biblical witness. In fact, God speaks to nothing and creates all space and time. But perhaps the strongest evidence that the rebuke in Mark 4 was indeed aimed at the “wind and waves” is in the text itself – in the very response of the disciples. What did they say? What was there conclusion? They were marveling in great amazement at the Son of God with the question “Who is this, that even the wind and waves obey him.” The point of the text is precisely the fact that wind and waves do not obey the voices of men…but they did obey this man. Who is it that does this sort of thing? Very God of Very God.

Therefore a personal agency, other than God, who could control the forces of nature was at play…the inference from here was that it was demonic forces at work.

This conclusion seems far from necessary after the failure of the first two premises of the argument. Now is it possible that a nefarious force caused a storm, Jesus rebuked these demons, and the storm ceased? Yes, but such seems to be reading way too much into the text from mere speculation. It is a much more natural reading, and fits the broader, clear context of Scripture, to assume the storm came upon the disciples providentially (at that time, in that place, when they were in a boat - yet through secondary causes of air masses colliding, etc.) so that the glory of Jesus would be revealed to the disciples so that they would have faith in Him as the unique Son of God – for only God can give orders to wind and waves and see to it that they obey.

Out…

--------

The Storms of Nature - Part II

Well, this really isn't part II of this post - but it is my second attempt at it...last night I hammered out this piece, only to have my browser crash as I tried to post...Quick note to bloggers...for long posts, back-up offline as you write. A lesson learned...I will get back to my thoughts on storms and natural disasters in a moment - I just hope it is as good as the other one - smile.

--------

Coherence in our Doctrine of God

I just finished a Systematic Theology class which had much discussion about the doctrine of God. Much debate surfaced as to whether God’s immutability (his unchanging nature) implied his impassibility (that God is not affected in his emotions by influences outside of his being). The following by JI Packer should be helpful in our definitions:   Third, God’s feelings are not beyond his control, as ours often are. Theologians express this by saying that God is impassable. They mean not that he is impassive and unfeeling but that what he feels, like what he does, is a matter of his own deliberate, voluntary choice and is included in the unity of his infinite being. God is never our victim in the sense that we make him suffer where he had not first chosen to suffer. Scriptures expressing the reality of God’s emotions (joy, sorrow, anger, delight, love, hate, etc.) abound, however, and it is a great mistake to forget that God feelsthough in a way of necessity that transcends a finite being’s experience of emotion.

Packer, J. I. Concise Theology : A Guide to Historic Christian Beliefs. Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House, 1995, c1993. (emphasis added)

I have been wrestling with things since the close of the class and have some questions about the passibility of God in relations to several other attributes of our Lord (namely immutability, eternity, and simplicity)

Issue One - Immutability and Emotions

What does it mean for God to experience emotions? I have been wrestling with how would define emotions, we could start with Scripture and hear words like anger, wrath, joy, happy, grief etc. this is a good starting place. But somehow, in my human constitution I am supposed to understand what these concepts mean. In my experience (as one in the imago dei) I understand quite quickly in my humanity, what is meant by emotions. Now, what are these in me?

• Understanding I - Emotions are simply movements of brain matter/chemistry responding to complex changes in the environment, be it from personal or non-personal things. I don’t think we want to go here although Murphy perhaps would.
• Understanding II - Emotions are states of feeling in the soul that change over time as we interact with truth, God, physical objects, circumstances, events, persons, and other spiritual beings which have a corresponding result in the biochemical state of our brains and other parts of our bodies. In this understanding (as well in Understanding I) emotions would be “finite states” of being. Now I mean finite in the sense of - temporary One’s emotional state can go from “happy” to “Sad” and perhaps be a mixture of many finite states and simultaneous senses of emotion…I have especially seen this at various stages of my wife’s pregnancies…

Perhaps more work needs to be done on a theology of emotions when we talk of God’s emotions. I cannot see that any understanding I have of human emotions could apply to an immutable God. In denying impassibility I must assume that circumstances and things (beings) outside of God, must cause Him to move from one emotional state to another, increasing or decreasing in pleasure, anger and the like. It predicates something to God which he currently is not, for instance we bring or add joy to God. I am in no way wanting to deny that God “feels” or has emotions, such would be impossible with the Scriptures before us. I am concerned in saying that God’s emotions change, in the sense the travel from one state to a different state for it seems such dynamism certainly implies change (at least by the only definition I have for dynamic) I do think it possible to hold to immutability and impassibility in describing the phenomena of God’s anger, joy, etc. I will attempt to do so in conclusion

Issue Two - Eternity and Emotions

If God is to traverse emotional states, if he is to become angry, in the sense that at (tb=0 secs) he is not angry and then at (ta=1 sec) he is now angry, it seems that this must happen to God in time for there is a before and after experience which God has. Now, there are those today who are arguing for “God in time” after creation (see God, Time, and Eternity by William Lane Craig…ironic that Grudem uses another of Craig’s earlier works in his chapter arguing for God’s timelessness)…it seems that if one goes for passibility he ought also to go for God in Time.

Issue Three - Simplicity (or Unity of Simplicity) and Emotions

Grudem writes “When Scripture speaks about God’s attributes it never singles out one attribute of God as more important than all the rest. There is an assumption that every attribute is completely true of God and is true of all of God’s character. For example, John can say ‘God is light’ (1 John 1:5) and then a little later also that ‘God is love’ (1 John 4:8). There is no suggestion that part of God is light and part of God is love, or that God is partly light and partly love. Nor would we think that God is more light than love or more love than light. Rather it is God himself who is light, and it is God himself who is love.(Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, 178, emphasis in original) My question is this Is “Joy” “Happiness” or “Gladness” properly predicated of God? With the above definition, if we do predicate this to God, that he is a “joyful” being, we then must say that God himself is joyful. Then by inference from God being infinite and perfect, we must say that God is infinitely and perfectly joyful, he is not lacking in joy, as it is a perfection. The same would be said of “Wrath” and indeed Grudem (and others) would argue that God is wrathful (necessisarily, this brings up a question for me about what Wrath means in God prior to creation, but that is another theological riddle for us to chew, perhaps Wrath is a hiding of God’s pleasure…but it seems much purer and active than simply a concealing, unless God’s pleasure concealed is so devastating to the soul…anyway, I need to think/read further on this riddle). So, if joy is a perfection I do not think I can enhance, or add to, or bring to God that which he already has in infinite perfection…And therefore I would have to say simplicity and changing emotions (passibility) in God bring up an incoherence that is left unsolved.

What then of God’s emotions? Shall Anselm die too soon?

Perhaps we can maintain a view of God who does not change in finite emotional states (impassable) but does possess emotions like joy, wrath, anger, sadness, happiness et al. Perhaps God IS joyful (simplicity) and is infinitely so. When I as a human being, worship and praise and submit and obey and do the works of God, the “face” of God’s joy is clearly turned to me, I experience his pleasure and joy and I know that he is pleased with me. Likewise when I all too often sin and forsake the foundation of life, the “Face” of God’s “Wrath” is revealed to me or brought to bear on my soul and I experience the displeasure and wrath of God…which then in God’s kindness I am brought to repentance. Also, when God desires to show compassion to his hurting creatures, he shows us the grief of his being at the presence of sin and brokenness.

This view has the promise to do several things:

1. It places the Biblical truth of God’s emotions in an expression of God’s volition or his will in other words, when God becomes angry with his people, he reveals to us the face and nature of his wrath. And likewise in his just wisdom, when we live rightly, he chooses to show us his pleasure and joy.
2. It seems to give us a rich theology of human emotions that is intrinsically tied to the character of God…while explaining the finite states and changes in human emotions. We do not experience all of God’s emotions at once but we experience things after God so to speak, in us that is. We rightly experience guilt in our sin as the face of God’s pleasure is withheld from us and we experience shame.
3. There is also much to be said about the emotions of Jesus, for he does possess human emotions and will for all eternity future. The question of the “eternality” of the Incarnation arise somewhere in here. Perhaps human emotions (that change) can be located in the pre-incarnate eternally incarnate logos (that sounds pretty bad though, doesn’t it) but again, I am out of my league here and should remain silent.

Anyway, it helps me to write down things as I think about them. Apologies if my thoughts do not contain the rigor which they ought. Perhaps I like Edwards and Piper too much on the infinite joy of God.

Out

————

Logic and a Three Year Old

I have recently begun an adventure that I am currently calling Logic with a Three Year Old. I am seeking to acquaint my daughter Kayla with the fundamentals of thinking (and a philsophical realism) and it has produced some fun and hilarious moments. We may not make it all the way towards something like this:

1. Being Is (B is) = The Principle of Existence.
2. Being Is Being (B is B) = The Principle of Identity.
3. Being Is Not Nonbeing (B is Not Non-B) = The Principle of Noncontradiction.
4. Either Being or Nonbeing (Either B or Non-B) = The Principle of the Excluded Middle.
5. Nonbeing Cannot Cause Being (Non-B > B) = The Principle of Causality.
6. Contingent Being Cannot Cause Contingent Being (Bc > Bc) = The Principle of Contingency (or Dependency).
7. Only Necessary Being Can Cause a Contingent Being (Bn → Bc) = The Positive Principle of Modality.
8. Necessary Being Cannot Cause a Necessary Being (Bn > Bn) = The Negative Principle of Modality.
9. Every Contingent Being Is Caused by a Necessary Being (Bn → Bc) = The Principle of Existential Causality.
10. Necessary Being exists = Principle of Existential Necessity (Bn exists).
11. Contingent being exists = Principle of Existential Contingency (Bc exists).
12. Necessary Being is similar to similar contingent being(s) it causes = Principle of Analogy (Bn — similar → Bc).

Geisler, Norman L. Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics. Baker reference library. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 1999.

But we have started with 1 (being) and 2 (indentity) and are slowly moving to non-contradiction and excluded middle. Methodilogically we are using funny little song/poem/couplets to have fun with this - we giggle and laugh and have a great time :) She already gets #1 (in fact, most of these are self-evident to most people). 1. Something is! 2. Here is where we are today: Something is, what something is A dog is a dog, a cat is a cat Annnnnnnnd a cat's not a dog and a dog is not a cat The Law of Identity - how about that! Anyway, further evidence that I am weird.

--------

Postmodern Christian...how hard it is to be...

For anyone out there who has heard the ever increasing choir of those "who are emerging" "who are reimaging - church, evangelism, spirituality" "Who are in the next wave" "Who see all things as dance" proclaiming judgment upon everthing "of modernity" let’s do this as an exercise in “PoMo/Emerging Christian” understanding – This is a good one to use as an exercise - http://www.theooze.com/articles/article.cfm?id=825 Read it first at the link above, then go below - I’ll comment on this as we go in bold, to show how much of this is just language games and silliness and we really need to get on with something much more productive for the Kingdom of God. Your modern, no your modern, no I'm postmodern...yada, yada - is getting waaaaay old. The "Rule of Pinky" by John O'Keefe Saturday July 24, 2004 PAGE: 1 While I would never say there should be a “litmus test” (such tests are wrong for the “postmodern”– because they imply certainty – in other words – they don’t like things so tightened down)for being a postmodern/emerging community of faith, I will say just claiming to be one does not make you one. I am Irish. I could claim to be German, learn the language, learn the culture, and learn to like the food (I all ready like the beer), but I would not be German (he is stating a combination of two principles known as the law of identity – something IS what it IS and the law of non-Contradiction – Something cannot be what it is and NOT what it is at the same time and in the same sense – these are logical maxims that PoMos usually deny, but then use in their arguments – as he will do – ie I’m not going to give you a test – I don’t believe it that – but here is a test). At best, I would be an Irishman who appreciates German culture. And at worst, I would be a person seeking to be what he is not for some alternative gain.The same is true within the postmodern/emerging conversation. For example, if Willowcreek or Saddleback (the always hated mega church) today decided to call itself "postmodern/emerging" that would not make it so. If a church calls itself postmodern/emerging, just because it is trying to reach a "younger crowd," that self-imposed label doesn’t make the church an actual postmodern/emerging community of faith. Let me restate my opening line again, while I would never (there it is again) say there was an absolute "litmus test" for a postmodern/emerging community of faith I do have to say that there are “standards.” (what is that but a rule to judge by? – putting it in quotes does not change this – now we all really believe in standards to judge something to be what it is – so why play games and act like we do not) There has to be something that marks a postmodern/emerging community of faith. These “standards” may be loose, “unofficial,” and even questionable, (then how useful are they) but I think they are central (read core to their identity – can’t be one without it – so they are not so loose and unofficial after all) to all postmodern/emerging communities of faith; you can see them as a kind of “rule of pinky” (thumbs are too modern) (that is just silly, I would say stupid, but my daughter won't let me use that word any more) that I think we can use to determine if a community of faith is, or is not, postmodern/emerging.How it came to be:At ginkworld.net we receive over 100 requests a month from different communities of faith to be added to the “community of faith listing” (which is vast and growing). And out of those, we may add only 10 to 15. Most of the requests are from churches that are very modern, very "willowback" (read 666) in structure and style. Some of these churches desire to call themselves “postmodern/emerging” not because they are, but because they see “postmodern/emerging” as the “new thing,” the “next-wave” in ministry, the “edge,” or the “cool thing to do.” They have no idea what it means to be postmodern/emerging (who does?). They read Kimball, Sweet, or some other author, and they feel if they don’t catch this wave they'll miss the beach all together. (Well, most of these authors tell people that they are “Missing the point”, that Christianity must change to mirror the culture or be irrelevant etc. There are books, convergences, web sites, conversations, experiences, ad nauseum which say precisely this – change or miss the beach all together) Others desire to be added to our list because they want to “attract and fix” people with a postmodern/emerging mind. One church asked that we add them, and when we sent them a email explaining that they would not be added (we have now stopped giving rejection emails) to explain why we did not add them – they got mad. They were not angry because they were postmodern/emerging and we missed it—they admitted as much. All they wanted was to be listed so they could minister to, as the senior pastor put it, “the lost postmodern believers who are being tricked into thinking that anything but ‘the true church of Christ’ is the answer.”This led us to ask some very important questions:

• Just because they desire to call themselves "postmodern/emerging," must we agree and post them?
• What would we see as central to a “postmodern/emerging” community of faith?
• If we did post those that were questionable, are we being honest to our call?
• Are we being honest to those who are looking for something different when they come to our site to find a “postmodern/emerging” community of faith?
• If we left to a committee (very modern idea) (gasp) to decide, who would be put on?

The question for us became, “How do we decide who to add to a list of “postmodern/emerging” communities of faith and still be honest, open, and direct concerning it? Over time, we developed the following criteria that works for us (always add the “for us” – that eliminates sounding like you are making an absolute judgment – but why can’t a modernist church be a postmodern/emerging church if these are just “their” standards – who are they to judge who is and who is not postmodern). But with all that being said, let me share with you that at some level this is still something each and every person needs to ask him or herself (it is person relative, or “community relative” for the more academically sophisticated postmodern). These are basic criteria, and not, by any means, to be taken as “written in stone.” (can’t do that, can’t be certain – but heck, God did write some things in stone – and those things can be understand by human beings – God reveals by writing some things in stone, and he did give us a book, a Bible – am I WRONG?)

“the rule of pinky” (playful and being cute are postmodern trademarks – they could not say “The Rules that Make You a Postmodern/Missional/Emerging Community – because that would be too “modern” of them.)

• A postmodern/emerging community of faith needs to have a willingness to encourage it’s participants to extend the self to the world around.
• As a gathering, they need to have a desire to see “community” as something more then a collection of small tribes, and they need to be able to see past their own tribe to that of others. They need to move from inside the community to a place of “uncomfort” and be in mission to all.
• A postmodern/emerging community of faith needs a willingness to move past what is, and redefine what will be. While we would never ask them to be innovators, we would expect them not to be imitators. If what the community is seeking to do is imitate another community, then that is not seeing what can be – but only living what is. When people “imitate” that tells us they see this as another “church program” and not a true expression of community and self. (This is a key problem I have with some in this movement – God’s idea was the church – it is not ours to make up as we go – there better be some imitation through the centuries, in fact for all of time, else the gospel is completely washed away by expressing “self” and “community” – Jude 3 tells us differently – that there is something once for ALL entrusted to us)
• A postmodern/emerging community of faith needs a willingness to treat all people as equals. When we say “all people,” we mean all people, regardless of age, race, gender, belief system or any other “box” we can think of, are equal in the eyes of God. (AMEN!!! Equal in God’s eyes because of what we are – made in his image. But let’s not let this thinking degrade into universalism as I have seen on many a pomo message board – Jesus taught that there are sheep and goats)
• A postmodern/emerging community of faith has a willingness to hear the voices of others. The idea that we accept people is cool, but if you are not going to hear them, we are simply speaking empty words; it is not just “hear” it is “listen.” (Sure, this is just being a kind and courteous person. But what does it mean to listen to someone who denies that Jesus is who Jesus says he is – I will love that person, hang with them, but I will not listen if listen means accept the truth of what everyone says – or that everything that someone says is even valuable.)
• A postmodern/emerging community of faith has a willingness to not be driven by programs, building or budgets. It does not center on what it has but on what it can do with that it has. (Again, this is not very thoughtful – if one goes to “do something” one has to take action. If doing it together, it must be organized otherwise you cannot do something “together” – scrap the building – fine by me, but if money is given to the elders of a community of faith it better be stewarded – God requires this – and spending what you do not have is bad news – so you better have a budget. Perhaps what needs to be said is “not by programs, buildings, or budgets” which leave God out, which are prayerless, which give not thought to the Spirit and Word of God.) The idea that there are no standards to be a postmodern/emerging church is just not the case. There may be no “hard and fast” rules (then why exclude others from the PoMo club), and it may be hard to apply the standards. To be honest, all of them do not have to be 100% on the line; there is room for grace. Just keep in mind, I don't think anyone who has written any book with a postmodern/emerging slant has ever suggested that there was no standard. (Good, now let’s just give up the game and talk about what is good, right and true – from our tradition and faith given to us by God)

Anyway, let God (the Trinity) be true, and may our hearts and minds seek after he who is the truth.

Out

--------

A Thought on a Thought from a Medieval Saint

Writing. To pull aside the mind from the distractions of our day to bring the soul to the contemplation of truth, to put thought down in a clearer form, can appear as if one is called to scale the heights of an icy slope with but flip flops on his feet. Tonight the mind races as I read a biography or the medieval scholastic philosopher Thomas Aquinas. A quote deeply challenging and quite relevant to many a debate I have had with both friend and adversary has confronted my mind. This is from GK Chesterton’s transcription of a debate between Thomas and Siger of Brabant on the nature of Theological and Scientific truth. If there is one sentence that could be carved in marble as representing the calmest and most enduring rationality of his unique intelligence, it is a sentence that came pouring out with all the rest of this molten lava [this is a reference to a portion of a fiery rebuttal to the point of an opponent in debate – RM]. If there is one phrase that stands out before history as typical of Thomas Aquinas, it is that phrase about his own argument: “It is not based on the documents of faith, but on the reasons and statements of the philosophers themselves.” Would that all Orthodox doctors in deliberation were as reasonable as Thomas in anger! Would that all Christian apologists would remember that maxim; and write it up in large letters on the wall, before they nail any theses there. At the top of his fury, Thomas Aquinas understands, what so many defenders of orthodoxy will not understand. It is not good to tell and atheist that he is an atheist; or charge a denier of immortality with the infamy of denying it; or to imagine that one can force an opponent to admit he is wrong, by proving he is wrong on somebody else’s principles, but not on his own. After the great example of St. Thomas, the principle stands, or ought always to have stood established; that we either not argue with a man at all, or we must argue on his ground and not ours. We may do other things instead of arguing, according to our views or what actions are morally permissible; but if we argue we must argue “on the reasons and statements of the philosophers themselves.” At times I have heard that we cannot reason with an unbeliever because there are no common epistemic grounds by which we can argue. I have always wrestled with this. What is the point in persuading anyone (2 Cor 5:11) if one cannot understand the language and rationale by which we attempt to persuade? Now a man may deny reason in order to hold conclusions contradictory to his own arguments – but such a man does not lack common ground, he lacks honesty. He will not admit to his own reasoning. His mind understands, yet his will remains obstinate – such is the state of the man at enmity with God – he will turn and cannibalize himself only to prevent his turning to his Creator. Like others before him, he simply will not come (John 5:40). Curtis Chang in his excellent book “Engaging Unbelief – a captivating strategy form Augustine and Aquinas” gives a strategy which seems to follow the Thomistic maxim above. Enter a friends story on her terms, understanding it well according to her arguments. Retell the story by her own reasoning exposing its tragic flaw and inconsistencies. Capture the story correcting the flaw with the truth of the gospel. The gospel will capture the truth in the position, exclude its error and free us to see clearly on the other side. I do not think for once that Thomas is suggesting that we abandon our own presuppositions to argue by way of another’s. It is precisely because we see by our faith that we can argue by way of another’s principles. If we were blind men we would not see well enough to not step in another’s dung heap. But because we do see by the light of faith we can kindly say “Sir this is dung” and then via his own nostrils and soles of his shoes demonstrate it to be such. Then we may suggest to him: “You would do well to avoid this steamy pile, behold there is another path to trod – and upon that path we may follow the one whose sandals we are unfit to tie.” If one then chooses and persists to wallow in dung – such is his lot. With the foolishness of preaching and with an apologia for the hope that I have. Out…

--------