March 7, 2007

• "presuppositions" vs "brute facts"

  Here's a recent email I wrote to a email group of creationists...   I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.

   

  Dear -------, -------, and other friends,

  I think you're both right.   We Christians can (and must) base our belief structure upon Christ and the Word of God as our sure foundation (more sure than shifting science).   Yet our faith in Christ is not subjective or based on circular reasoning, but is based on real historical facts (1 Corinthians 15:1-8) that have empirical/historical/scientific backing.

  Our "presuppositional structure" can be based on the Bible (a more 'postmodern' emphasis), while our trust in the Bible itself can be based on the "evidence" for the accuracy and truth of the Bible (a more "modernist" emphasis).   Neither full postmodernism nor full modernism are correct (they are both human-centered rather than God-centered), but both philosophies of knowledge have some truth to them.

  While saying "Christ should be our starting point" sounds great, problems arise whenever we ask the "What" and "Why" questions.  What/who exactly is this "Christ"?  Is He the Christ of the modern emergent church, the liberal socialistic activist-for-the-poor?  Is He the Christ of Luther? or of the Catholics?  "He's the Christ of the Bible," one might say.  But all of those groups claim Biblical basis.  It is necessary to go back to the "brute facts" of the not-completely-subjective Word of God to ascertain exactly who Christ was and is.    Furthermore, "Why" should Christ be our starting point?   Why not Muhammad or Buddha or Joseph Smith?  Why must we believe in any God whatsoever? Again we must go back to the historical "brute facts" of creation and the history surrounding Jesus of Nazareth to provide a basis for our hope (1 Peter 3:15).

  Yet brute facts presented to a nonbeliever will be as ineffective as water rolling off a duck's back... unless God opens the heart and mind to believe.

  The Bible itself supports both perspectives on the issue I think (they are complementary rather than contradictory) - in Acts 26:26, 17:22-32, 1 Cor. 15:1-8, etc, examples are given of pointing to Christ from empirical evidences and proofs, philosophical reasoning, and historical facts.   Yet in Col. 2:1-10, 1 Cor 1:18-2:16 and 1 Tim 6:20 we are warned against "philosophy"/"human wisdom" and in 2 Peter 1:19 we are told that the prophetic word is even more sure/reliable than direct sensory experience.

  Will people come to believe in Christ without God working in their hearts to open their eyes?  No.  "Evidence" or "brute factuality" without God's regenerating power is useless.  (Acts 16:14, Rom. 1, John 6:44, 65, Eph. 2:1-10, etc).  Kuhn and Polanyi showed the stubbornness of mere scientific paradigms in the face of data... how much more the stubbornness of a human heart that hates God.
  On the other hand, was Van Til right that the only way to witness to people is to first get them to adopt your presuppositional starting point (e.g. the Bible is God's Word)?   I see plenty of evidence from Scripture that there are other ways to present the gospel... including ways that start from "scientific facts" or philosophical reasoning, and end at Jesus Christ as portrayed in the Scriptures (e.g. Acts 17:22-32).

  Different people are led to Christ from different starting points (1 Cor. 9:19-23).

  With esteem,

  In Christ, Tim

  • 12:09 pm
  • 1 Comment