Anselm: Faith and Reason

   Over the years, I’ve enjoyed Bengt Hagglund’s History of Theology.  Here’s a section from chapter 17, specifically on Anselm. 

“Anselm, like Augustine before him, represented that position with respect to faith and reason which was customarily characterized by the expression, ‘I believe in order that I may understand’ (credo ut intelligam).  Basing their opinion on the words found in Is. 7:9 (Vulgate), ‘If you do not believe, you will not understand,’  those who follow this line emphasize that faith is the presupposition of a rational insight into revealed truth.  As Augustine put it, understanding is the reward of faith.”

“Anselm developed this position in more detail, among other places, in his Proslogion.  It is clearly expressed, for example, in the following passage: ‘I do not attempt, Lord, to penetrate Thy depth, for by no means do I compare my intellect with it; but I desire to understand, to a degree, Thy truth, which my heart believes and loves.  For I do not seek to understand in order that I may believe, but I believe in order that I may understand’ (Ch. 1).”

“The credo ut intelligam concept presupposes that theology and philosophy can be harmonized.  That which forms the content of faith, and which man comprehends by faith, can also be understood by reason – at least to some extent.  Faith and the principles of reason are not antithetical.  It is the task of theology to present the content of faith in such a way that it can be understood and comprehended. …[Faith] has the primacy, for man does not come to faith through reason; but on the contrary understanding comes by faith.  The role of reason is simply to make clear, a posteriori, that the truths of faith are necessary even as seen from the point of view of logic and reason.  For it is only after one has grasped revealed truth in faith that he is able, through rational discussion and meditation, to perceive that that which he believes is also agreeable to reason.”

Good stuff.  In a day where values and feelings rule over truth and logic, it is good for Christians to remember that our faith is not irrational.  Many great theologians followed this Augustininan/Anselmian perspective.  For just one example, Herman Bavinck wrote Our Reasonable Faith, a masterpiece of theology.

shane lems

sunnyside wa

Luther Latin Quote of the Day

 

 

 

 

Pecca fortiter, sed fortius fide et gaude in Christo.  (Martin Luther)

Amen!  Boenhoffer’s commentary on that phrase is darkly humorous and true: “You are a sinner anyway, and there is nothing you can do about it!” Speaking of Luther, I really need to get Wingren’s Luther on Vocation. 

shane lems

sunnyside, wa

Luther on the Keys of the Kingdom

“Christ’s intention is to comfort us poor sinners in the most loving and effective manner.  His purpose is not to give the pope power over the angels in heaven nor over emperors on earth.  For our consolation all sins, none excepted, are subject to Peter and the keys.  All sins which he binds and looses shall be bound and loosed, despite the resistance of all devils, the whole world, and of all angels, and all despairing thoughts of our heart, even in the presence of death and evil omens.”

“ A simple, trusting heart can boldly rely on God’s action.  And in times of deep distress, with our consciences accusing us, we may say: Well then!  I have been absolved of my sins, however many and great they may be, by means of the key, on which I rely.  Let no one remind me of my sins any longer.  All are gone, forgiven, forgotten.  He who promises me Whatever you loose shall be loosed does not lie; this I know.  If my repentance is not sufficient, his Word is; if I am not worthy, his keys are: He is faithful and true.  My sins shall not make a liar of him.”

The Keys, wrote Luther, have everything to do with the law and the gospel.  “Any reasonable person must admit that in the text (Matt 16.19) the keys are not associated with the performance of any works.  They enjoin and command nothing, but threaten and promise.  Now, to threaten and to promise are not the same as to command….  The key which binds carries forward the work of the law…. The loosing key carries forward the work of the gospel.”

From Luther’s Works (American Edition), 40.373-5.  The treatise is simply called “The Keys.”

shane lems

sunnyside wa

The Privatization of Faith

Here in the U.S., we live in a culture (or cultures) where a person’s faith is OK as long as she keeps it private and is tolerant of other faiths.  Objective knowledge is public and for the textbook (i.e. the moon is around 384,000 km from the earth), while subjective values and beliefs are personal and private (i.e. Jesus is Lord).

Of course this type of reasoning – upon which much of the US’s political, cultural, moral, and economical structures are built – can be torn apart; the poor logic isn’t too hard to spot.  More on that at a later time (FYI: Newbigin is great when it comes to  “public” vs  “private” beliefs).  For now, I want to use one of Bavinck’s quotes to deal with this private v public when it comes to the church in the world.

“The more the Christian faith [or the church - spl] retreats from dealing with every possible question, restricting its content, and the more it applies itself to building a rigorous foundation, deducing all else logically from these fundamental principles, the more it will become inwardly weak and divided.” Herman Bavinck, Certainty of Faith (St. Catharines: Paideia Press, 1980), 9.

I love this quote, and it it indicts me.  History has proved Bavinck’s 100 year old words true.  The tough questions liberals and/or unbelievers have thrown at the church have often been answered poorly or simply avoided.  Instead of grappling with these questions publicly, the church has built trenches and walls around the fundamentals.  In Bavinck’s terms, she has buried her head in the sand (Ibid.).  She has focused her gaze within the trenches (privacy!), and “friendly” fire has resulted in a weak and divided church that can only give a blank stare to the world when it asks us tough questions.

In Newbigin’s terms, the gospel is public truth, not a belief we tuck away in our closets!

shane lems

sunnyside wa

Why Baptism?

Though I do not fully agree with Luther on all his baptismal views, this one is outstandingly God-centered – it is still wrestling me around the room as I type.

“We are baptized[;] not because we are certain of our faith but because it is the command and will of God.  For even if I were never certain any more of faith, I still am certain of the command of God, that God has bidden to baptize, for this he has made known throughout the world.  In this I cannot err, for God’s command cannot deceive.  But of my faith he has never said anything to anyone, nor issued an order or command concerning it.”

“True, one should add faith to baptism.  But we are not to base baptism on faith.  There is quite a difference between having faith, on the one hand, and depending on one’s faith and making baptism depend on faith, on the other.  Whoever allows himself to be baptized on the strength of his faith, is not only uncertain, but also an idolater who denies Christ.  For he trusts in and builds on something of his own, namely, a gift which he has from God, and not on God’s Word alone.  So another may build on and trust in his strength, wealth, power, wisdom, holiness, which are also gifts given him by God.  But a baptism on the Word and command of God even when faith is not present is still a correct and certain baptism if it takes place as God commanded.  Granted, it is not of benefit to the baptized one who is without faith, because of his lack of faith, but baptism is not thereby incorrect, uncertain, or of no meaning.”

“If we were to consider everything wrong or ineffectual which is of no value to the unbeliever, then nothing would be right or remain good.  It has been commanded that the gospel should be preached to all the world.  The unbeliever hears it but it has no meaning for him.  Are we therefore to look on the gospel as not being a gospel or as being a false gospel?  The godless see no value in God himself.  Does that mean he is not God?”

In other words, faith wavers, waxes, and wanes, but the objective Word and promise of God do not; Luther said baptism is based on the latter, not the former.  The historical context of these statements is important to consider as well – he was writing in response to the Anabaptists of the day, who said baptism didn’t “stick” if a person didn’t have faith.  On that basis, the Anabaptists would baptize people again (and again if necessary).  The entire tract of Luther, Concerning Rebaptism (from which the above quotes come) is pretty profound and an excellent read.

shane lems

sunnyside, wa

A Newbigin Summer

Around six months ago, I read my first dose of Lesslie Newbigin simply because I heard him quoted from time to time.  I read him because I like to get to know important church figures and their thought (at least to some extent).  The Gospel in a Pluralist Society was the first book by Newbigin I dug into, and I’ve been “hooked” ever since.  If you want to read some of Newbigin but don’t know where to start, you may want to check out Lesslie Newbigin Missionary Theologian: A Reader edited by Paul Weston (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006).  In this book, Weston basically took all the writings of Newbigin and put them in a historical and topical order, giving the reader a great summary of Newbigin’s thought.

The book has two basic sections: 1) The Theological Foundations For Missions and 2) Missionary Theology in Practice.  Here’s a chunk of the opening chapter (following a short biography of Newbigin) on The Knowledge of God.

“It is the mark of religion, among the activities of the human spirit, to claim to be the bearer of revelation; to claim, that is to say, that the message which it delivers and the facts with which it deals are not the fruit of unaided human processes of observation and inference, but have their root in transactions in which man plays the part of the recipient and not of originator.  In Christianity this is central.”

“There have been divergences, sometimes wide, but the main current of Christian thought has echoed the words of Christ: ‘I thank thee, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that Thou didst hide these things from the wise and understanding and didst reveal them unto babes.’  It has been the glory of Christianity to find its saints among those whom the world counts babes, and to exclude from the sphere where it is most intolerable the snobbery which makes blessedness dependent upon abilities which must always be the possession of a few” (p. 18).

In other words, Christianity is not a mathematical endeavor in which the “knowledgeable” have some sort of superiority (like science).  Christianity is receiving something from Someone else and personally trusting that testimony which He has chosen to reveal to us.

It is a Newbigin summer over here in South Central Washington State.  I’m going to read Foolishness to the Greeks next.

shane lems

sunnyside wa

Faith, Doubt, & Certainty in Christian Discipleship (Newbigin)

This is an amazing and truly outstanding book.  Lesslie Newbigin’s Proper Confidence (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995) is honestly one of the best brief and to the point books I’ve read on Christian epistemology (i.e. knowing things – specifically how faith and knowledge relate).  I would love to do a series of blog posts on this book, but I don’t have the time right now.  Instead, I’ll blurb a bit now, and come back to it later.

In this book, Newbigin talks about modernism & fundamentalism along with postmodernism & liberalism.  He wonderfully describes them, critiques them, points out the strengths of each, but then says neither will ultimately do for a Christian pilgrim “on the way.”  In fact, says Newbigin, our knowledge is “partial here in via, but promised in its fullness at the end” (p. 7).  We cannot assume a sort of enlightenment or even fundamentalistic view of knowledge, that we know so much based on scientific, reasonable propositions.  Nor can we assume a sort of liberal or postmodern view that nothing can be known with any certainty.  Instead,

“If the place where we look for ultimate truth is in a story and if (as is the case) we are still in the middle of the story, then it follows that we walk by faith and not by sight.  If ultimate truth is sought in an idea, a formula, or a set of timeless laws or principles, then we do not have to recognize the possibility that something totally unexpected may happen.  Insofar as our knowledge is accurate, we shall be able to predict the future.  Future and past events are governed by the same laws, the same principles, and the same realities.  But if we find ultimate truth in a story that has not yet been finished, we do not have that kind of certainty.  The certainty we have rests on the faithfulness of the one whose story it is.  We walk by faith” (p. 14)

Again, I’ll come back to this book some other time.  If you want a lesson in epistemology, especially how to think and act when it comes to liberalism and fundamentalism or postmodernism and modernism, reason and faith, and so forth, you really have to get this book.

A few more reading tips: First, Newbigin appropriates Polayni well in this book.  Second, this adds a new “robustness” to Van Til’s presuppositional arguments.  Finally, I assure you that if you read this book of Newbigin along with Herman Bavinck’s Certainty of Faith, you will not only be edified, your faith will also be strengthened, and you’ll have a great set of lenses with which to read and view the Christian faith in light of science, doubt, and skepticism.   Both books are around 100 pages and probably easy enough for anyone who knows the basic outlines of the history of philosophy.

shane lems

sunnyside wa

For Greek Junkies: BDAG and the Apostolic Fathers

For you fellow Greek junkies out there, though I may be preaching to the choir, don’t forget to use BDAG (A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature) to find word parallels between the NT and the early church fathers.  Below is an example from a brief word study on 1 Corinthians 15.14c.

In 15.14c Paul says that if there were no resurrection, our faith in Christ would be kenos.  Greek lexicons say this means empty, void, vain, etc.  To see how kenos was used by the early church fathers (or if they used it), go ask BDAG.  In this example, BDAG says that kenos was used (among many other places) in Dg 8:2.  The index of abbreviations in BDAG (p. lxiii in the front) says this is the Epistle to Diognetus.   If you have Michael Holmes’ edited volume, The Apostolic Fathers, you can see Dg 8:2 for yourself in Greek and English on page 707.

So we go to that (Dg 8:2) and see there in the Greek the same term (kenos) to describe the statements of the “specious philosophers” (axiopiston philosophon) who say that God was fire, or water, or any other element he created.  (Side note: there is humor here in Dg 8.2 – the author says that ironically those who think God is the element of fire are headed for that very thing: fire!)  These specious philosophers speak empty (kenos) and silly (lerodes) statements.

In Dg 8.2 we also get a parallel to kenos, the word Paul used in 1 Cor 15.14c: lerodes.  All this helps us get a little closer to the meaning of “vain faith,” a “resurrectionless” faith.  Paul says faith without the resurrection is empty; Dg 8:2 says the philosophers’ statements that God is fire is empty and silly.

Of course, these are just the basics of a word study – and remember word studies need to be handled and used with care!  The high-speed Bibleworks user could no doubt do this as well, perhaps with more depth.  The point I want to make, I suppose, is this: BDAG put the references to the early church fathers in there for a reason! Use it!

shane lems

sunnyside wa

Justification by Faith Alone in the Early Church

In 1 Clement 32.3-4 (probably written just before 100 AD), we get a great Pauline statement on justification by faith only.

“All (the OT saints) therefore were glorified and magnified, not through themselves or their own works or the righteous actions that they did, but through His will.  And so we, having been called through His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified (dikaioumetha) through ourselves or through our own wisdom or understanding or piety (eusebeias), or works (ergon) that we have done in holiness of heart, but through faith (dia tes pisteos), by which the Almighty God has justified (edikaiosen) all who have existed from the beginning; to whom be the glory for ever and ever. Amen.”

This is a great statement.  Earlier in ch. 32, the author was talking about God’s gifts given in the OT era (Jacob, Levites, etc).  He ties the OT saints to the NT (and beyond) saints saying they were all justified by faith, not works or piety.

Cited from The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations, Third Edition ed. M. W. Holmes (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007).

shane lems

sunnyside wa

Justifying Faith

Here’s a great (and clear!) snapshot of the classic Reformed description of the essence of justifying faith – first, by way of negative, then positive.

“Faith does not consist in love…love is not the essence of faith.”

“Faith does not consist in obedience to and observance of God’s commandments.  Yes, in the matter of justification, works and faith are contrasted with each other.”

“Rather, we understand” that saving faith is “the outgoing [extraspective] act of the heart whereby one, in surrendering to Christ and receiving him, entrusts soul and body to him in order that he would save him.“  [Quotes from Wilhelmus a' Brakel, The Christian's Reasonable Service, p. 277-8.]

Good stuff.  Brakel is just saying what the Reformation so loudly preached: sola fide!  We’re not justified by obedient faith, we’re not justified by faithfulness, we’re not justified by faith working through love.  We can’t say “faith-alone-fulness” or anything like that.

Instead, we say with the Heidelberg that 1) I have grievously sinned against all God’s commandments and my very conscience accuses me of it, 2) I am still inclined toward all evil, and 3) My faith has no value before God in justification.  Nevertheless, despite the fact that I don’t deserve it, by grace alone, God imputes to me Christ’s perfect satisfaction, righteousness and holiness as if I had never sinned and as if I had been as obedient as Christ was obedient for me (Q/A 60-61).

The very nature of justifying faith repudiates all works, decency, merits, love, righteousness, and obedience.  Instead, faith looks (with knowledge, conviction, and assurance) to someone else for these things: Jesus Christ and all his merits.  HC: I can receive Christ’s righteousness and make it mine in no other way than by faith alone. Again, to be overly redundant on purpose, let me quote the Belgic Confession: even works that proceed from the good root of faith “are of no account towards our justification”; we are “justified even before we do good works” (Article 24).

Paul is the most shocking and clear: God justifies the ungodly (Rom 4.5).  Without this staggering truth, we’d be doomed.

shane lems

sunnyside wa