Philosophical Theology, Theology, Uncategorized

St. Augustine on Death and Confession of Christ

by Dave Seng

For no sooner do we begin to live in this dying body, than we begin to move ceaselessly towards death. — St. Augustine

Maybe it is because we are in the season of the year in which dark and deathly images prevail in our neighborhood, or perhaps it could be the fact that my beautiful wife works in the area of providing social services to the elderly and dying, or it just could be that I never really came out of my existential phase, but whatever the reason, I have recently been thinking about the philosophical and theological aspects of death.

St. Augustine, one of the greatest intellectual figures in Western Christianity, thought and wrote a lot about different aspects of death. In the following chapter, St. Augustine addresses the question, what happens to those who die unbaptized and yet confess Christ as Lord and Savior? That might sound like an odd question to those belonging to American evangelicalism, but as a confessional Lutheran and classical Christian, baptism is the central sacrament which works forgiveness of sins, delivers from death and the devil, and gives eternal salvation to all who believe this, as the words and promises of God declare (Small Catechism, IV). So, although the concern which St. Augustine addresses, might sound odd to those adjacent to (though perhaps not completely outside of) classical Confessional Christianity, it really was of first importance to the early church.

St. Augustine restates the theme of this chapter several times. It is the comfort in which Christians have in the face of death. “Precious, therefore, is the death of the saints, to whom the grace of Christ has been applied with such gracious effects, that they do not hesitate to meet death themselves, if so be they might meet Him.” Christians, as justified sinners, receive the victory Christ achieved over death. That is why we can not separate our doctrine of justification from a correct understanding of death. The Gospel is simply this—Christ who did not need to die, since he was sinless, entered into death (Phil. 2:7, I Cor. 5:7, I Pet. 3:18), died “for us” (Mark 10:45, Rom. 5:6, I Thess. 5:10, Heb. 2:9) and conquered the devil and death and rose with power over them. Christians receive the gracious imputation of Christ’s righteousness to their account by genuine confession or by baptism. Either way, the sinner is declared right before God because of Christ’s righteousness. This is why justification is the gospel and the reason Christians do not have to fear death.

Of course, St. Augustine has a lot more to say about death, and what it means to the Christian. There is much more to say about this topic. Nonetheless, I found this chapter particularly insightful. Enjoy it and I encourage everyone to read the rest of St. Augustine’s City of God.

___________________________________________________________

St. Augustine, City of God, Book XIII, Chap. 7.

Of the death which the unbaptized suffer for the confession of Christ.

For whatever unbaptized [literally “unregenerate”] persons die confessing Christ, this confession is of the same efficacy for the remission of sins as if they were washed in the sacred font of baptism. For He who said, Unless a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God, (John 3:5) made also an exception in their favor, in that other sentence where He no less absolutely said, Whosoever shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven; (Matthew 10:32) and in another place, Whosoever will lose his life for my sake, shall find it. (Matthew 16:25) And this explains the verse, Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of His saints. For what is more precious than a death by which a man’s sins are all forgiven, and his merits increased an hundredfold? For those who have been baptized when they could no longer escape death, and have departed this life with all their sins blotted out have not equal merit with those who did not defer death, though it was in their power to do so, but preferred to end their life by confessing Christ, rather than by denying Him to secure an opportunity of baptism. And even had they denied Him under pressure of the fear of death, this too would have been forgiven them in that baptism, in which was remitted even the enormous wickedness of those who had slain Christ. But how abundant in these men must have been the grace of the Spirit, who breathes where He lists, seeing that they so dearly loved Christ as to be unable to deny Him even in so sore an emergency, and with so sure a hope of pardon! Precious, therefore, is the death of the saints, to whom the grace of Christ has been applied with such gracious effects, that they do not hesitate to meet death themselves, if so be they might meet Him. And precious is it, also, because it has proved that what was originally ordained for the punishment of the sinner, has been used for the production of a richer harvest of righteousness. But not on this account should we look upon death as a good thing, for it is diverted to such useful purposes, not by any virtue of its own, but by the divine interference. Death was originally proposed as an object of dread, that sin might not be committed; now it must be undergone that sin may not be committed, or, if committed, be remitted, and the award of righteousness bestowed on him whose victory has earned it.

Philosophy, Theology, Uncategorized

Christianity is Terribly Narrow

by Dave Seng

I should have been glad to follow the right road, to follow our Savior himself, but still I could not make up my mind to venture along the narrow path. – Augustine, Confessions, 8.1

Some say that the Christian faith is terribly narrow. After all, how can one really believe that Jesus is the only way to the forgiveness of sins and eternal life? The fact is, reality itself is extremely narrow. There is only one solution to a math equation. There is only one road that gets you to your destination (other roads take you elsewhere). All logic rests on the one law of noncontradiction. There is only one set of parents that created you. A body can only be in one place at a time. You can only live one moment at a time. Existentially, you will die in only one place. All contingent beings are explained by the one law of causality.

The universe is guided by carefully defined limitations. Life itself can only exist within very narrow parameters. According to the big bang hypothesis, which maybe happened 15 – 18 billion years ago, scientists claim that if the explosion had been a trillionth of a degree too hot or too cold the carbon molecule which is the basis of all human life could never have been developed. The hemoglobin molecule, which is necessary for all warm-blooded animals, would not have been produced. Science itself rests on absolute laws such as the principle of predictive uniformity. Just think about aviation. Try flying an aircraft without strict standards and adherence to absolute scientific values. Gravity is one hundred percent effective. Why should it be odd, then, to think that Jesus is the only way to salvation?

[This post is influenced by a lecture I once heard by philosopher Peter Kreeft. For more, click here: http://peterkreeft.com/]

Book Reviews, Natural Theology, Philosophical Theology, Theology, Uncategorized

Review: Five Views on Apologetics

by Dave Seng

[Note: This essay was published about 17 years ago in Tabletalk when I worked at Ligonier Ministries. It is an older piece but perhaps it will be of some help.]

Book Review

Five Views on Apologetics Ed. By Steven B. Cowen

Zondervan Publishing House, 2000.

Assessing Apologetic Methodologies

Editor Steven B. Cowen presents the aspiring apologist with a highly valuable resource with the volume Five Views on Apologetics, (FVOA) published by Zondervan. The work is generally very readable and any informed layperson would find this book clear and concise. All Christians who seek to think rationally and critically about the truth of Christianity will find the book very helpful. The strength of the volume rests in its presentation and defense of various schools of apologetic methodology. The reader is introduced to all five major schools—classical, evidential, cumulative case, presuppositional, and reformed epistemology.

William Lane Craig presents the Classical method, which he states is based on natural theology and Christian evidence such as the deity of Christ, the reliability of the Scripture, and the resurrection (28). Craig holds a two-step approach to apologetics in which he argues for the truth of theism based on Thomas Aquinas’ “Five Ways” to establish that we live in a theistic universe and then argues for Christianity based upon various kinds of evidence. Craig’s argumentation is strong but his most interesting contribution lies with his discussion of faith and reason drawn principally from Martin Luther. Craig uses Luther’s categories of the magisterial use of reason and the ministerial use of reason (36). Luther called the magisterial use of reason that which adjudicates the truthfulness of the gospel based upon shear reason alone. In the magisterial use of reason, human reasoning becomes the basis and foundation for faith. The ministerial use of reason is how the Holy Spirit guides the Christian in deciding Christian truth claims, “reason submits to and serves the gospel” (36). Most theologians reject the former and accept the latter as the appropriate use of reason. Craig claims, “Reason under the sovereign guidance of God’s Spirit and Word is a useful tool in helping us to understand and defend our faith” (37). Many of the 17th century Protestant and Lutheran Scholastics, found the ministerial use of reason helpful in discerning the place and purpose of philosophy and establishing sound principles derived from Scripture.

Evidential apologetics focuses largely on the historical evidence for Christianity. While Classical apologetics argues deductively (reasoning in which the conclusion follows with logical necessity from the premises), Evidential apologetics is largely inductive in its approach. Inductive reasoning is a form of argumentation that draws its conclusion based upon probability. (Inductive reasoning is used most often by historians and scientists and is empirical in nature.) The evidentialist, then, will draw the best possible conclusions based upon his or her premises. Evidential apologetics is termed a “one-step” approach (as opposed to Craig’s two-step method) because it seeks to argue from the very essence of what Christians believe.

Gary Habermas contributes arguments from the historical nature of Christian events based upon what he calls a “minimal facts” approach. Minimal facts, according to Habermas, are facts that are either accepted by critics or facts that would be absurd for critics to deny. The strength of the evidential method is in asserting the historical character of the Christian faith. Evidentialists will argue for theism and, more specifically, Christian theism but do not stress an elaborate use of natural theology the way classical apologists will. Nevertheless, Habermas claims that “historical evidence can serve as a species of argument for God” (92).

Paul Feinberg, the cumulative case contributor, presents a case for Christianity that is rationally compelling. Feinberg does not build his case for Christianity based on formal logical proof (i.e. inductive or deductive reasoning) but claims the best case for Christianity will be somewhat similar to how a lawyer presents a brief in a law court, or how a historian explains facts and events, or how a literary critic presents an interpretation of literature (151). The cumulative case method is sometimes called the “inference to the best explanation approach” (152). Feinberg draws from a wide variety of evidence that is common to our human experience. Cumulative case apologetics views Christian theism, other theistic religions, and atheism as systems of belief (151). The cumulative case apologist will then marshal all available evidence from the fields of history, literature, law, and philosophical theology to discern which system of belief makes more sense out the facts of our human condition.

John Frame represents the presuppositional school of apologetics. The main thrust of Frame’s argumentation is that the Bible is the only certain source of truth, ethics, and epistemology. Presuppositionalists claim that the noetic effects of sin have affected human reason in such a way that there is little or no common ground between the Christian and non-believer. The apologist, therefore, must presuppose the truth of Christianity and then argue “transcendentally” that is, the presuppositionalist would claim that every fact and argument presupposes the God of the Scriptures.

Finally, Kelly James Clark rounds out the discussion of apologetic methodology with his version of Reformed epistemology. In contrast to the classical, evidential, and cumulative case schools, Reformed epistemology claims that one’s belief in God is rational apart from evidence. The Reformed epistemologist does not deny that evidence is available or important, but claims that evidence is not necessary for rational theistic belief. Reformed epistemology argues that we know many things intuitively without empirical evidence, such as 2 + 2 = 4, moral truths such as kindness is always a virtue and killing people for fun is always wrong, and memory facts such as “I had breakfast this morning.” Clark also suggests that belief in God is more like the belief that other people exist (272). Belief in God is not arbitrary, however, and Clark points to Calvin’s doctrine that every human person has been imbued with a sense of the divine. Nonbelievers simply suppress this knowledge due to their sinfulness (Romans 1).

The apologetic task has long been a part of the Christian intellectual tradition. Christians from the earliest days of the faith can be seen contending for the faith that was delivered to the saints (Jude 3). This is easily seen in Justin Martyr’s Disputations with Trypho the Jew, Athenagoras’ Supplication to The Roman Emperor, Marcus Aurelius, Augustine’s City of God, and various works by Anselm, Aquinas, Pascal, and Alvin Plantinga in the Twenty-First century (among others). The task of defending the faith will, to some degree, be rooted in the historical and cultural climate the apologist finds himself or herself in. Many of the contributors to FVOA conclude that the Bible does not teach one specific methodology to the exclusion of other approaches. We see an evidential and empirical emphasis on the use of the senses in Luke 24:39-40, Matthew 28:6 and I John 1:1-2. The use of the mind and rationality is affirmed in I Corinthians 10:15, 2 Corinthians 10:5 and 1 John 4:1. And Romans 1:18 – 23 teaches that the truth of God is clearly perceived by unbelievers. Whatever apologetic method one holds to then, a powerful and coherent case for Christianity will show that Christian theism alone illuminates human experience (is existentially meaningful), objectively true, and more rationally compelling than any other world religion. Finally, it would be a wonderful day indeed to see a time when Christians stop debating apologetic methodology (as important as it is) and start engaging an unbelieving world with the truth of their faith.

Classical Apologetics, Intellectual History, Metaphysics, Natural Theology, Philosophy, Theology

A Critique of Presuppositionalism With Dr. Nathan Greeley.

by Dave Seng

I would like to thank my good friend Steve Hoover for telling me about this video.

Here is one of the best discussions and critiques of the presuppositional apologetic method I have seen in a long time. Dr. Jordan Cooper and Dr. Nathan Greeley are Lutheran scholars who seek to revive the Lutheran scholastic method and corresponding classical approach to apologetics.

For about twenty years I have made the point, much to the disappointment of my presuppositional friends, that the presuppositional method is nothing more than Kantian idealism. This video does a very good job of explaining why that is the case. (Note: Dr. Greeley uses the term anti-realism for Kantian idealism, both anti-realism and idealism hold the position that the mind is ultimate in determining reality. So when they speak of anti-realism, they are essentially talking about idealism.)

Idealism is an error because we do not determine reality. Therefore, philosophy and Christian apologetics must start with metaphysics, the nature of reality as it is, and not with theories of knowledge (epistemology). Our knowledge of reality, does not objectively determine reality. Our theories of reality can be wrong.

A couple of terms to know before going into the discussion.

Presuppositionalism (which I have found a few Lutherans to be adherents of) is the idea that mankind is so fallen (due to the noetic effects of sin) that there is no possible intellectual commonality between the Christian apologist and the non-Christian. There is no place for the ministerial use of reason. The apologist must first assume the truth of the existence of God and the reliability of the Bible as the proper starting point for doing apologetics. In other words, the apologist must presuppose the very things his non-theistic friend rejects in the first place.

One thing Dr. Cooper and Dr. Greeley could have pointed out is the circularity of the presuppositional approach. This is a logical fallacy which is formally called the petitio principii (begging of the question). This is an error that occurs when the conclusion of an argument is already present, usually disguised or vague, in the premises. It is seen as circular because the conclusion is present in the premises, and no real progress is made. (I am aware of Van Til’s and Frame’s response to this critique, but that should really be another post. It is enough to say, here, that when one reasons with correct premises and conclusions, a good and valid rational argument is a virtue and an expression of the ministerial use of reason. Rationality is not an intellectual or moral failing.)

Another term that comes up in the discussion is realism. In metaphysics, realism is the doctrine that Forms, or essences, possess objective reality. In modern philosophy, realism is the concept (contrasted with idealism) that physical objects exist independently of perception, the mind, or theory of reality. For realists, theories of reality, theories of knowledge, and perceptions are logically separate from objective reality itself.

Regarding realism, the name was given to a certain philosophic way of thought first inaugurated by Plato and Aristotle, developed and refined in the Middle Ages, and still living at the present time. This view includes three basic theses: 1. The world is made up of substantial beings really related to one another, which exist independently of any human opinions or desires. Reality is objective. 2. These substances and relations which make up the world can be known by the human mind as they are in themselves. 3. Such knowledge can offer sound and immutable guidance (the law of nature) for individual and social action.

Christian theology, philosophy, and apologetics should always start with a firm understanding of realism. As Dr. Cooper and Dr. Greeley point out, the Lutheran Scholastics understood this point very well.

I could say more but this discussion is too important and just fantastic. Enjoy.