Fundamental Christianity

Forwarded from Christian Apologetics

“Against both Aquinas and Hodge, the Bible alone is the source from which Christians are called to draw their epistemology. Scripture is adequate for every good work, including defending the faith (2 Tim. 3:16-17). In Christ are all the treasures of wisdom stored (Col. 2:3). The Christian is called to take every thought captive to the obedience of Christ (2 Cor. 10:3–5). The only biblically acceptable apologetic is therefore one which is drawn from the Bible and acknowledges the epistemic lordship of Christ. Any position other than this is merely knowledge falsely so called (1 Tim. 6:20).

Not only are epistemologies derived from sources other than Scripture dishonoring to Christ, but they lead to an abortive defense of the faith. Whether one’s theory of knowledge is grounded in demonstrative reasoning, common sense or something else, this, and not Scripture becomes the ultimate authority of the one who adheres to it. It becomes surer than the sure word of God. But Scripture teaches us that Scripture itself is to be our final authority (2 Pet. 1:19, 21; 2 Tim. 3:16, 17; 1 John 5:9; 1 Thess. 2:13). If Scripture is the final authority, and if one proves the authority of Scripture on the basis of something else other than Scripture, then one proves that Scripture is not the final authority. In other words, to prove the authority of Scripture on something other than Scripture is to disprove Scripture.

Christian apologists are morally and logically compelled to defend the faith with an epistemological outlook that accords with the faith. Not only is it wrong to defend the faith with an autonomous epistemology—Christianity must be understood on its own terms—but, in the nature of the case, blending Christian theology with non-Christian epistemology always serves to undermine the Christian’s ability to defend the faith. As Christians we need to be much more epistemologically self-conscious; we need to develop a truly Reformed epistemology.

Quoting again from Greg Bahnsen's forthcoming book:

Our Christian epistemology (or theory of knowledge) should thus be elaborated and worked out in a way which is consistent with its own fundamental principles (or presuppositions), lest it be incoherent and ineffective. Our "method" of knowing is determined by our "message" as a whole—thus being influenced by, even as it influences, our convictions about reality . . . We ought not to espouse one thing theologically, then practice something else in our scholarship. One way to say this is to say that Christian scholars and apologists must be thoroughly "self-conscious" about the character of their own epistemological position, letting its standards regiment and regulate every detail of their system of beliefs and its application. They need always to form opinions and develop reasoning in light of their fundamental Christian commitments.”

http://web.archive.org/web/19991001065058/http://www.scccs.org/may97.html

www.group-telegram.com/hk/FundamentalChristianity.com/13578

1.3K viewsDec 15 at 20:30

“Against both Aquinas and Hodge, the Bible alone is the source from which Christians are called to draw their epistemology. Scripture is adequate for every good work, including defending the faith (2 Tim. 3:16-17). In Christ are all the treasures of wisdom stored (Col. 2:3). The Christian is called to take every thought captive to the obedience of Christ (2 Cor. 10:3–5). The only biblically acceptable apologetic is therefore one which is drawn from the Bible and acknowledges the epistemic lordship of Christ. Any position other than this is merely knowledge falsely so called (1 Tim. 6:20).

Not only are epistemologies derived from sources other than Scripture dishonoring to Christ, but they lead to an abortive defense of the faith. Whether one’s theory of knowledge is grounded in demonstrative reasoning, common sense or something else, this, and not Scripture becomes the ultimate authority of the one who adheres to it. It becomes surer than the sure word of God. But Scripture teaches us that Scripture itself is to be our final authority (2 Pet. 1:19, 21; 2 Tim. 3:16, 17; 1 John 5:9; 1 Thess. 2:13). If Scripture is the final authority, and if one proves the authority of Scripture on the basis of something else other than Scripture, then one proves that Scripture is not the final authority. In other words, to prove the authority of Scripture on something other than Scripture is to disprove Scripture.

Christian apologists are morally and logically compelled to defend the faith with an epistemological outlook that accords with the faith. Not only is it wrong to defend the faith with an autonomous epistemology—Christianity must be understood on its own terms—but, in the nature of the case, blending Christian theology with non-Christian epistemology always serves to undermine the Christian’s ability to defend the faith. As Christians we need to be much more epistemologically self-conscious; we need to develop a truly Reformed epistemology.

Quoting again from Greg Bahnsen's forthcoming book:

Our Christian epistemology (or theory of knowledge) should thus be elaborated and worked out in a way which is consistent with its own fundamental principles (or presuppositions), lest it be incoherent and ineffective. Our "method" of knowing is determined by our "message" as a whole—thus being influenced by, even as it influences, our convictions about reality . . . We ought not to espouse one thing theologically, then practice something else in our scholarship. One way to say this is to say that Christian scholars and apologists must be thoroughly "self-conscious" about the character of their own epistemological position, letting its standards regiment and regulate every detail of their system of beliefs and its application. They need always to form opinions and develop reasoning in light of their fundamental Christian commitments.”

http://web.archive.org/web/19991001065058/http://www.scccs.org/may97.html

BY Fundamental Christianity