The influential 20th century theologian C.S. Lewis was the author of "Mere Christianity," published in 1952. A transcription of three BBC radio interviews originally published in pamphlet form during World War II, Lewis sought to smooth over theological differences between denominations by holding to the common fundamentals of the faith, such as the argument from morality, but with a distinctive lack of adherence to the Bible as an authoritative and inerrant revelation from God. Rather, this methodology focuses on philosophical rationality.
As a regrettable side effect, a symptom of modern classical apologetics is the notion of the "brute fact" of the resurrection of Jesus from the dead as proof of His claims to Godhood attested by the eyewitness accounts of the Gospels, in a vacuum apart from any Biblical revelation of God's plan in history.
Of course, in a Van Tillian metaphysical construct, a concept of a "brute fact" doesn't exist. According to Cornelius Van Til:
"The idea of brute, that is utterly uninterpreted, “fact” is the presupposition to the finding of any fact of scientific standing. A “fact” does not become a fact, according to the modern scientist’s assumptions, till it has been made a fact by the ultimate definitory power of the mind of man." (Van Til, Common Grace)
Thus, any fact does not exist in a nebulous vacuum "out there," but must be given meaning by the worldview (and the undergirding metaphysical presuppositions) that defines it.
Classical apologist Frank Turek, in a recent post on Cross Examined entitled "Christianity is True Even if Some of the Bible Isn't," attempts to put forth an argument that even if the Bible wasn't inerrant, Christianity would still be true because of the Resurrection. Turek writes:
"Christianity hinges on that historical event. If Christ rose from the dead, then, game over, Christianity is true...So Christianity isn’t true just because the Bible says it’s true. Christianity is true because an event occurred."
Turek continues:
"As my friend Andy Stanley [uh oh - yours truly] asks, “Do you realize that there were thousands of Christians before a line of the New Testament was ever written?...This why the foundational beliefs of Christianity—what C.S. Lewis called Mere Christianity—are true even if the reports have some errors. Getting details wrong in reporting the Resurrection doesn’t change the larger point that the Resurrection actually happened."
Of course, not even getting into the issue of WHY you would think that the New Testament was possibly full of errors, but NOT the reports of the resurrection, there's an even larger problem at play here:
The resurrection in and of itself as a "brute fact" doesn't "prove" Christianity without the revelation of God's Word. In an inherently chaotic and Chance universe, the resurrection could simply be seen as an odd or unlikely event, but not in any way significant in a metaphysical endorsement. The antitheist could simply shrug their shoulders and say "eh, weird things happen sometimes. Doesn't prove that God did it." Hence, the utter failure of Turek's "mere Christianty" apologetic to address the antitheist's fallacious metaphysical template.
As a regrettable side effect, a symptom of modern classical apologetics is the notion of the "brute fact" of the resurrection of Jesus from the dead as proof of His claims to Godhood attested by the eyewitness accounts of the Gospels, in a vacuum apart from any Biblical revelation of God's plan in history.
Of course, in a Van Tillian metaphysical construct, a concept of a "brute fact" doesn't exist. According to Cornelius Van Til:
"The idea of brute, that is utterly uninterpreted, “fact” is the presupposition to the finding of any fact of scientific standing. A “fact” does not become a fact, according to the modern scientist’s assumptions, till it has been made a fact by the ultimate definitory power of the mind of man." (Van Til, Common Grace)
Thus, any fact does not exist in a nebulous vacuum "out there," but must be given meaning by the worldview (and the undergirding metaphysical presuppositions) that defines it.
Classical apologist Frank Turek, in a recent post on Cross Examined entitled "Christianity is True Even if Some of the Bible Isn't," attempts to put forth an argument that even if the Bible wasn't inerrant, Christianity would still be true because of the Resurrection. Turek writes:
"Christianity hinges on that historical event. If Christ rose from the dead, then, game over, Christianity is true...So Christianity isn’t true just because the Bible says it’s true. Christianity is true because an event occurred."
Turek continues:
"As my friend Andy Stanley [uh oh - yours truly] asks, “Do you realize that there were thousands of Christians before a line of the New Testament was ever written?...This why the foundational beliefs of Christianity—what C.S. Lewis called Mere Christianity—are true even if the reports have some errors. Getting details wrong in reporting the Resurrection doesn’t change the larger point that the Resurrection actually happened."
Of course, not even getting into the issue of WHY you would think that the New Testament was possibly full of errors, but NOT the reports of the resurrection, there's an even larger problem at play here:
The resurrection in and of itself as a "brute fact" doesn't "prove" Christianity without the revelation of God's Word. In an inherently chaotic and Chance universe, the resurrection could simply be seen as an odd or unlikely event, but not in any way significant in a metaphysical endorsement. The antitheist could simply shrug their shoulders and say "eh, weird things happen sometimes. Doesn't prove that God did it." Hence, the utter failure of Turek's "mere Christianty" apologetic to address the antitheist's fallacious metaphysical template.
Without the underpinning of having a coherent epistemological framework to understand the significance of the resurrection, and indeed the necessity of the Triune God of Scripture to human reasoning and experience, the "Mere Christianity" appeal to the "brute fact" of the resurrection of Christ as a proof of His deity is a apologetic failure to leave the unbeliever without excuse.
Comments
Post a Comment