Volume 3 Number 2 Article 6 December 1974 Confessional Scholarship? Nick Van Til Dordt College Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcollections.dordt.edu/pro_rege Part of the Christianity Commons, Higher Education Commons, and the Philosophy Commons Recommended Citation Van Til, Nick (1974) "Confessional Scholarship?," Pro Rege: Vol. 3: No. 2, 20 - 27. Available at: https://digitalcollections.dordt.edu/pro_rege/vol3/iss2/6 This Feature Article is brought to you for free and open access by the University Publications at Digital Collections @ Dordt. It has been accepted for inclusion in Pro Rege by an authorized administrator of Digital Collections @ Dordt. For more information, please contact [email protected]. by Nick Van Tit Professor of Philosophy Mr. van TiL received his A.B. from CaLvin CoLLege. Subsequentto miLi- tary service in WorLdWar II he spent a semester at Westminster TheoLogicaL Seminary in the study of ApoLogetics. Thereafter he received M.A. degrees from the University of Michigan in both history and phiLosophy and foL- Lo~ed further graduate studies in phi'Losophy at Michigan State University. that nobody spoils your faith through Putting the title of this discussionin intellectualism." question form allows it to reflect rightly I t seems to me, however, that Col- the attitude of many Christian scholars. ossians 2:8 is not a warnina against the Becausethey are doing so many of the same pursuit of scholarship or of theoretic dis- things that the non-Christian scholar is tinctions and explanations. Rather, it doing, they are forced to askwhether their showsthat the antithesis runs through all of scholarshipas Christiansmust begin with a life. The antithesi$ is announced as early as confessionalstance. This questionhas been Genesis 3: 15 and is repeated through all of a problem for Christian scholarsever since the Bible. If we are to pursue our scholar- they came into contac~with Greek pagan ship biblically, we cannot do so by failing thought. It continuesto be a problem for to take account of the distinctions which many evangelicalChristians today, who, the antithesis demands. either as professionalscholars or as laymen, Some Christianshave evaded the ArJ-Q- are trying to attain consistencyand integra- ~ by the use of compartmentalization. tion in their intellectual life. On the one hand, they have the "givens" of Today, as in the past,some try to dis- their faith. Those are not to be questioned pose of the problem by dismissingthose and so are left standing apart from their conclusionsof theoretic thought which do professional pursuits as scholars. Tertullian not directly agree with the Bible as they said he believed becauseit was absurd to do interpret it. To aggravatethe conflict be- so. It defied all logic as well as the demands tween Jerusalemand Athens, one can refer of scientific verification. So Barth also had to such texts from the Bible as Colossians to deny miracle or the possibility of Christ 2:8, "Beware lest any man spoil you coming into history in a way that is through philosophy and vain deceit, after straightforwardly meaningful in the world the tradition of men,after the rudimentsof of sense experience. Because God, the the world and not after Christ." To make "wholly other," could not come directly sure that you cover all of scholarshipand into time, Barth had to place the Incarna- not just philosophy, you can call in the tion in the non-scientific limbo of Philips translation which reads,"Be careful "Geschichte" in order to avoid the radical -20- consequencesof the antithesis. construed to mean that I am calling into Some Christians seem to feel that the question his love for our Lord and Savior, problem created by the antithesis can be Jesus Christ, or his dedication to the cause solved by a kind of division of labor in of Christian scholarship. scholarship. Christians in the past have The medieval monk thought he could often busied themselves with theology and cloister himself away from the conflicts "moral science" as having particular religious inherent in the Christian's confrontation significance, while the natural scienceswere with the antithesis. But even then, those relegated to the non-Christian as a kind of who were engaged in scholarship were con- neutral area. In the natural sciences, the fronted with and sometimes tantalized by antithesis had little force. With that the existing pagan \Nritings. One can emphasis in mind, it often happened in the imagine a monk taking in the metaphors of early history of American church-related Virgil with heady delight while the abbot collegesthat the President taught the course was out of sight, somewhat I ike a teenage in "moral philosophy" to make sure that boy inhaling his first cigarette out of sight the job was done right and, I presume, to of his parents. strengthen himself in the assurancethat he Very early someone found a useful was heading a Christian college. figure to justify the appropriation of pagan Though I don't like the single-text ideas, when they were considered usefuI way of getting at the biblical perspective on and did not seem to carry any thought that a subject, I would call attention to the fact stood in diametrical opposition to the plain that it is also in Colossiansthat we are given truth of the Bible as they interpreted it. an impetus towards integrated learning. Th is figure was 'that of the Hebrews rei iev- I n Colossians 1: 17, where the personal ing the Egyptians of their treasure as the pronoun clearly refers to Christ, we read, Hebrews made their Exodus. This analogy "And he is ,before all things, and in him was already in use at the time of Augustine. all things consist." I take it that "all" here Rabanus Maurusof the ninth century court admits of no exceptions. It would follow school of Charlemagnerepeats the idea with that if we are to understand any "thing," the added provision, "The philosophers, that we will have to begin by taking it in its especially the Platonists, if perchance they creational context. Furthermore, "thing" in have spoken the truth, are not to be this context should not be limited to shunned but their truth appropriated as tangible entities such as desk and chairs, but from unjust possessors." Those who em- must be extended in meaning to cover also ployed tllis figure failed to note that much our doing and the very possibility of any of the Egyptian treasure was later used to meaningful saying-or non-meaningful say- form the golden calf that so stirred the ing, for that matter, as the latter can only wrath of Jehovah as f\l1osescam down from be what it is in the context of the former. the mount with the Ten Commandments. I n the history of Christian thought, In the thirteenth century, Thomas those who felt the need for some meaning- Aquinas, the noted Dominican theologian, ful association between their Christian con- formulated an approach to Christian scho- fession and their intellectual pursuits have larship which under the name "Thomism" from time to time approached the solutions hassince that time borne his stamp. Taking in divergent ways. Let me promptly and his general method from Aristotle, Aquinas sincerely say that if it turns out in sequel began with the empirical-rational method, that I differ radically with the position of a which in the modern period has been fellow Christian. it should by no means be identified with scientific method. By the -21 Thomistic method, all rational human beings was buffeted about by subsequent philoso- can share a common deposit of knowledge, Christian and non-Christian alike, as long as phers with a variety of disproofs. Many it comes by sense perception and is ration- were satisfied that it was permanently laid to rest by Kant when he suggestedthat the ally organized. No distinction need be argument is invalid becauseexistence is not maintained between Christian and non- a predicate. But it would be like saying, Christian thought as it operates with a God. is good; God is powerful; and God is common method and with common ingre- "is." But Kant's argument did 'not termi- dients. What distinguishes the Christian is the fact that through the_Bible he is given nate the discussion. Only a few years ago, Alvin Plantinga, Professor of Philosophy at the mysteries of the Christian faith which Calvin College, edited a small-volume treat- are necessary for his salvation. The inter- ment of the subject, thoughf h~ did not try pretation of the Bible, meanwhile, remains to find new validity for Anse'lm's ~pproach.1 the sole prerogative of the Church. The difficulty Wittl the argument of While Thomism had a necessary place the Thomists, both medieval,ari'd modern, for the Bible as to the way of salvation, at and the argument of Anselm should now be the same time it developed a "natural obvious. We cannot move by an unbroken theology" by which it offered proof for the causal series of events in creation to the existence of God on the basis of the induc- Creator as First Cause. ..,lJVecannot move tive procedures which had been developed by an unbroken chain of logical steps from by Aristotle. Thomists argued from the a presumably self-evident assumption in our obvious appearance of motion to the need minds to the Creator of all minds. In each of a Primer Mover. God, the omnipotent, case,we end up with an abstraction, instead' then becomes the best candidate for the of the God of our salvation who has title of Prime Mover. So with a bit of in- revealed Himself in the Bible as a personal, ductive sleight of hand, they moved up triune God and has provided for our re- from the natural to the Creator of the demption in Christ.