Thomist Spotlight | Étienne Henri Gilson

From Gifford Lectures 

Biography

Étienne Henri Gilson was born into a Roman Catholic family in Paris on 13 June 1884. He was educated at a number of Roman Catholic schools in Paris before attending lycée Henri IV in 1902, where he studied philosophy. Two years later he enrolled at the Sorbonne, graduating in 1907 after having studied under many fine scholars, including Lucien Lévy Bruhl, Henri Bergson and Emile Durkheim.

Gilson taught in a number of high schools after his graduation and worked on a doctoral thesis on Descartes, which he successfully completed (Sorbonne) in 1913. On the strength of advice from his teacher, Lévy Bruhl, he began to study medieval philosophy in great depth, coming to see Descartes as having strong connections with medieval philosophy, although often finding more merit in the medieval works he saw as connected than in Descartes himself. He was later to be highly esteemed for his work in medieval philosophy and has been described as something of a saviour to the field

From 1913 to 1914 Gilson taught at the University of Lille. His academic career was postponed during the First World War while he took up military service. During his time in the army he served as second lieutenant in a machine-gun regiment and was awarded the Croix de Guerre for bravery upon relief from his duties. After the war, he returned to academic life at Lille and (also) Strasbourg, and in 1921 he took up an appointment at the Sorbonne teaching the history of medieval philosophy. He remained at the Sorbonne for eleven years prior to becoming Professor of Medieval Philosophy at the College de France in 1932. During his Sorbonne years and throughout his continuing career Gilson had the opportunity to travel extensively to North America, where he became highly influential as a historian and medievalist, demonstrating a number of previously undetermined important differences among the period’s greatest figures

Gilson’s Gifford Lectures, delivered at Aberdeen in 1931 and 1932, titled ‘The Spirit of Medieval Philosophy’, were published in his native language (L’espirit de la philosophie medieval, 1932) before being translated into English in 1936. Gilson believed that a defining feature of medieval philosophy was that it operated within a framework endorsing a conviction to the existence of God, with a complete acceptance that Christian revelation enabled the refinement of meticulous reason. In this regard he described medieval philosophy as particularly ‘Christian’ philosophy.
Gilson married in 1908 and the union produced three children, two daughters and one son. Sadly, his wife died of leukaemia in late 1949. In 1951 he relinquished his chair at the College de France in order to attend to responsibilities he had at the Institute of Medieval Studies in Toronto, Canada, an institute he had been invited to establish in 1929. Gilson died 19 September 1978 at the age of ninety-four

His works include: La liberté chez Descartes et la théologie (1913); Le Thomisme (1919, trans. 1924); Etudes de philosophie médiévale (1921); Saint Thomas d'Aquin (1925); Introduction a l'etude de S. Augustin (1929; trans. 1960); L’espirit de la philosophie medieval (2 vol., 1932; trans. 1936); La théologie mystique de Saint Bernard (1934; trans. 1940) Christianisme et philosophie (1936); The Unity of Philosophical Experience (1937); Réalisme thomiste et critique de la connaissance (1939); God and Philosophy (1941); L’Etre et l’essence (1948; trans. 1949); La philosophie de saint Bonaventure (1953; trans. 1965); Christian Philosophy in the Middle Ages (1955); Painting and Reality (1957); Elements of Christian Philosophy (1960); Le philosophe et la théologie (1960; trans. 1962).

Digg It!

no comments yet.

International Conference on Natural Theology | Beyond Paley: Renewing the vision for Natural Theology

International Conference on Natural Theology
 
Beyond Paley: Renewing the vision for Natural Theology
 
23-25 June 2008, Museum of Natural History, 
Oxford University

A major international conference on natural theology will be held at Oxford University from 23 – 25 June 2008, entitled “Beyond Paley: Renewing the Vision for Natural Theology”. The conference will review every aspect of the question of whether the divine can be known through nature, aiming to stimulate discussion of the scientific, theological, historical, philosophical and broader cultural aspects of this important issue.

The conference is named after William Paley (1743-1805), whose celebrated Natural Theology (1801) is widely regarded as one of the most important historical statements of this approach. It is clear that the approach stands in need of substantial renewal and redirection, in the light of the many scientific, philosophical and theological criticisms directed against it. The conference will aim to craft new approaches in the light of developments since then.

This conference, in addition to reviewing past approaches, will seek to chart some new directions for natural theology, especially in the light of recent scientific exploration of so-called “anthropic” phenomena. There is considerable interest in these questions at every level of the academic world, as well as in the media. This conference is likely to attract much attention from the media and academy, and is certain to catalyse further discussion for years to come.

This conference will be held in the Oxford University Museum of Natural History, designed by John Ruskin. Appropriately enough, at one stage it was proposed to name this building the “Museum of Natural Theology”. This magnificent neo-Gothic Grade I listed building contains scientific collections gathered over a period of three centuries. It was opened in 1860, and is widely regarded as one of the finest of its kind. The Museum includes a state of the art lecture theatre, fully equipped for digital presentations. Accommodation will be at St Anne’s College, close to the conference venue, but conference delegates are welcome to make their own arrangements with local hotels and guest houses.

We are negotiating to see if it may be possible for conference delegates to view the room (no longer open to the public) in which Samuel Wilberforce and Thomas Huxley debated Darwin's Origin of Species during the 1860 meeting of the British Association.

Confirmed speakers and topics include:

Dr Justin Barrett, Senior Director of the Centre for Anthropology and Mind, Oxford University. His publications include Why Would Anyone Believe in God? (AltaMira, 2004), described by Pascal Boyer as “a brilliant and challenging presentation of the cognitive study of religion, by a psychologist who practically invented the field.” Dr Barrett will explore the relevance of the emerging field of the cognitive science of religion for natural theology.

Topic: How “natural” is natural theology?

Jeremy Begbie, Professor of Theology at the University of St Andrews, Scotland, and Associate Principal of Ridley Hall, Cambridge. Professor Begbie’s research interests are principally in the interplay between theology and the arts. His publications in this field include Voicing Creation’s Praise: Towards a Theology of the Arts (T&  Clark, 1991) and Theology, Music and Time (Cambridge University Press, 2000).

Topic: Natural theology and the arts.

John Hedley Brooke, formerly Andreas Idreos Professor of Science and Religion, Oxford University, and presently Fellow of the Institute of Advanced Studies, Durham University. Professor Brooke has a long-standing interest in the development of natural theology. His publications include the prize-winning book, Science and Religion: Some Historical Perspectives (Cambridge University Press, 1991), and more recently, Heterodoxy in Early Modern Science & Religion, co-edited with Ian Maclean (Oxford University Press, 2005).

Topic: The historical development of British natural theology.

Simon Conway Morris, FRS, Professor of Evolutionary Palaeobiology at the University of Cambridge. He was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society aged 39, was awarded the Walcott Medal of the National Academy of Sciences in 1987, and the Lyell Medal of the Geological Society of London in 1998. His publications include The Crucible of Creation (Oxford University Press, 1998) and Life’s Solution: Inevitable Humans in an Lonely Universe (Cambridge University Press, 2003). His 2007 Gifford Lecture at the University of Edinburgh was entitled “Darwin's Compass: How Evolution Discovers the Song of Creation”.

Topic: New developments in evolutionary biology and the redirection of natural theology.

Hilary Fraser, Geoffrey Tillotson Professor in Nineteenth-Century Studies, and Head of School, English & Humanities, Birkbeck College, University of London. In her Beauty and Belief: Aesthetics and Religion in Victorian Literature (Cambridge University Press, 1986), Dr Fraser explored the link between natural beauty and religion, a theme which she will develop in this conference address with particular reference to natural theology in the writings of John Ruskin and Gerard Manley Hopkins. Her more recent publications include The Victorians and Renaissance Italy (Blackwell, 1992), and English Prose of the Nineteenth Century (Longmans,1997).

Topic: Natural beauty and natural theology in Nineteenth Century Writers

Peter Harrison, Andreas Idreos Professor of Science and Religion, Oxford University. He has published extensively in the area of cultural and intellectual history with a focus on the philosophical, scientific and religious thought of the early modern period. His publications include 'Religion' and the Religions in the English Enlightenment ( Cambridge University Press, 1990) and The Bible, Protestantism, and the Rise of Natural Science (Cambridge University Press, 1998).

Topic: Reading the “Book of Nature” in the Early Modern Period

John Haught, Landegger Distinguished Professor of Theology at Georgetown University, Washington, DC. He was the winner of the 2002 Owen Garrigan Award in Science and Religion. He has written extensively on the importance of Darwinism for Christian theology, including God After Darwin: A Theology of Evolution (Westview Press, 2000), and Deeper Than Darwin: The Prospect for Religion in the Age of Evolution (Westview Press, 2003).

Topic: The Challenges of Darwinism for Natural Theology

Alister McGrath, Professor of Historical Theology, Oxford University. Dr McGrath has a special interest in the relation of the natural sciences and Christian theology. His recent publications include A Scientific Theology (3 vols, T&T Clark, 2001-3) and the forthcoming The Open Secret: A New Vision for Natural Theology (Blackwell, 2008). He will deliver the Gifford Lectures at the University of Aberdeen in 2009 on the theme of the place of anthropic reasoning in contemporary natural theology.

Topic: The theological basis of natural theology

Richard Swinburne, FBA,  Emeritus Nolloth Professor of the Philosophy of the Christian Religion, University of Oxford. Dr Swinburne is one of the best-known and most widely read contemporary philosophers of religion. His recent publications include new editions of his Faith and Reason (Clarendon Press, 2005) and The Existence of God (Clarendon Press, 2004). He has dealt with natural theology at many points in his writings.

Topic: Natural theology: the current state of the debate within philosophy of religion.

Keith Ward, FBA, Gresham Professor of Divinity, Gresham College, London, and formerly Regius Professor of Divinity, Oxford University. Dr Ward has written extensively in this field, especially in relation to the interface of science and religion. His works include God, Chance and Necessity (Oneworld, 1996)and Pascal’s Fire: Scientific Faith and Religious Understanding (Oneworld, 2006).

Topic: The Arthur Peacocke memorial lecture: the future for natural theology. [This lecture will be open to the public, and will take place in the University Church of St Mary the Virgin, Oxford].

Other speakers are being approached. A conference brochure is in preparation, which will be published in various formats, including a version to be distributed on the web.

Applications will be received from 1 January 2008.

Call for papers:

Papers are invited for presentation at the conference and publication on the web site. These should be limited to 15 minute oral presentations, although longer versions of the paper can be posted on the website. Applications should be received by 15 November 2007; decisions will be notified to the e-mail address supplied by 1 January 2008. We particularly encourage submission of papers in the following broad areas, although other areas are also welcome:

The history of natural theology

The philosophical foundations of natural theology

The place of the natural sciences in natural theology

The theological evaluation of natural theology

Applications should take the following form: A 200-300 word description of the topic to be addressed, including your assessment of its significance; a brief curriculum vitae (no more than a single side) including publications relevant to your proposed topic; and an e-mail address that will be active up to the time of the conference itself. Please submit applications as a Word attachment by e-mail, marking the message “Proposed Paper for Oxford Natural Theology Conference” to the convenor, Professor Alister McGrath, at the following address:

Alister.McGrath@hmc.ox.ac.uk

Bursaries

We will be offering a limited number of student bursaries to promising graduates who might wish to develop research in this area, and will provide further details of this shortly. These bursaries will cover the conference fee but not accommodation costs.

You are welcome to circulate this updated notice to anyone who might be interested in attending this conference.

Alister E. McGrath, Convenor
Professor of Historical Theology, Oxford University

Last updated: 24 September 2007

Digg It!

1 comment.

COMMENTARIA IN LIBRUM PRIMUM SENTENTIARUM (St. Bonaventure’s Commentary on the Sentences )

by St. Bonaventure of Bagnoregio, O. F. M.
DOCTOR SERAPHICUS
WITH TEXT OF THE BOOK OF SENTENCES BY PETER LOMBARD

© 2006-7 English Translations, emendations
and digitization of texts, unless otherwise specified.

As Part of the Commentary Project

Accompanied by the Latin Text of the Quaracchi Edition, in Parallel

With the footnotes and Scholia of the Quaracchi Editors

Nota Bene:  If you are a Professor of Theology or Philosophy or of Medieval Studies and have found this English Translation useful to yourself or students, and would like to publicly commend it, to further its diffusion and utility, please contact the Project at the URL Above.

Public Commendations of This Work:

"This is a very impressive achievement and a great service to the scholarly community,” says Dr Benjamin Myers
Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Centre for the History of European Discourses (CHED), The University of Queensland, Australia
January 31, 2007

Also: Comments, criticism and suggestions in regard to any aspect of this translation or project are cordially invited from the Academic Community, and most gratefully accepted, as the purpose here is to propagate the authentic thought of the respective Authors.

——————————————————————————–

This "Summa" of Theology stands shoulder-to-shoulder with that of St. Thomas Aquinas, but which differs from it by retaining the outlook of the Greek and Latin Fathers, while reconciling Aristotle with St. Augustine. 

——————————————————————————–

Digg It!

3 comments.

Resources for Modern Aristotelians

Philosophical, Theological, Socio-Political and Pastoral

Digg It!

no comments yet.

Introducing: Societas Scholasticorum

We are an intellectual association commited to restoring the philosophic doctrines, didactic principles, and scientific synthesis of the greatest masters of the medieval universities, the Scholastics.  We hold Thomas of Aquin above all other philosophers as the most perfect Scholastic thinker and we apply ourselves to renewing the great tradition of Thomistic Philosophy forged by his Commentators throughout the centuries.

http://www.societyofscholastics.org/home.html

Digg It!

no comments yet.

International Congress of Medieval Philosophy in Palermo, 2007

Digg It!

no comments yet.

The Necessary Preconditions for Studying the Bible

One of the opening lines in the Tale of Two Cities characterizes the ethos of that time setting stating that “it was the best of times and the worst of times.” The same could be said about Evangelicalism in regards to its approach to Bibliology. Although there have been great strides and rides between the crescents of education and technology and the progress seen in academia with its proliferation of Doctoral candidates is overwhelmingly large, there also have been a resurgence of age-old heresies disguised under the labels of new and innovative.

The technological breakthroughs and deeper understanding of the many enigmas that were previously misunderstood or not understood at all have given humanity an amazing confidence that makes it feel as though it is about to reach God. The tower of Babel could very well characterize the presumptuous attitude to understanding in general. In a recent debate between Dr. William Lane Craig and Dr. Peter Atkins, Atkins’ attitude best represents this attitude in regards to human understanding. He said that although there are many things that are not yet explained by science, given some time, science alone will be able to explain all of life’s mysteries. This haughty attitude is a display of the arrogant understanding of our age. With each new technological or scientific breakthrough there is a brick that is laid down in the construction of our symbolic Tower of Babel.

How does this affect our evangelical understanding of Theology and how we apply to our every day lives? In a desperate effort to pull back the curtain to see if there really is a wizard of Oz, we have tried to pull back the theological curtain only to find a god that we have fashioned to our understanding and liking. A god that is fashioned to that which is within our grasps of understanding mixed with a batch of mysticism is now very much popularized by market entrepreneurs and national booksellers. There is a crisis of Prolegomena or the necessary preconditions for doing Bibliology. And if we continue to feebly fashion this god with our own jewelry of understanding we will end up with something no bigger, no more majestic, no more powerful and transcendent than the confines of our imagination. It was Voltaire who said something to the effect that God made man in his image and man returned the favor.

These necessary preconditions for doing theology or what is better called as Prolegomena, (lit: to speak before) are the essential building blocks in order for Bibliology to stand on firm ground. This paper will discuss three elements that are part of Prolegomena and how they affect a particular field within Theology, namely, Bibliology. These three constituents are the metaphysical, the interrelational and the hermeneutical preconditions for doing proper Bibliology.

 The Metaphysical Precondition 

When the Metaphysical preconditions are established before doing Bibliology we see that the relationship between natural and special revelation have a direct correspondence. If the correspondence between these two differs in any area, then there are serious implications that would demonstrate that Bibliology is not a true science. If the Bible is not true, then where is the motivation to study it as the Word of God? The Question then arises “how would the science then be different than the Bhagavad-Gita or the Qur’an.”  It would then remain as just an extensive and impressive piece of literary work.

However, we will point out that once the work is done a proper and valid Bibliology can be established. Note that although we can talk about all of the implications a proper Metaphysics would render we will deal with only two areas that are directly related to this field of theology. Two crucial aspects of Bibliology that Prolegomena will demonstrate are whether there is divine authorship and if the material in question is without error.

 Validity of Scripture as the Word of God 

There is a song that children in churches all over have memorized and joined in unison to sing at one time or another. “…yes Jesus loves me, the Bible tells me so.” Although this statement could not be more clearer and full of truth, there needs to be a source outside that would authenticate whether the Bible is the word of God. The source of authenticity cannot rely within the realm of scripture because that would be a petitio a princippi or “begging the question.” In order to see if the scriptures are true we need to rely on an exterior correspondence. The Bible says in its own defense that the authorship is of divine origin and was stated by Jesus who by miracles and fulfilled prophecy proved that he was the Son of God (John 10:35). In another passage it also states that the author cannot mislead or lie (Heb. 6:18). In addition, God is truth according to the Gospel of John (14:6).

 Yet, although it seems that the Bible is consistent within itself (we will further expound this in the next section) we cannot use this principle to validate Bibliology. In order to see if God spoke we need to see if God exists. It does not make sense to say that Bible is true without acknowledging if the Author is true. A Shakespearean novel could substantiate claims that it is of Shakespearean influence if Shakespeare never existed. That would be absurd. That is why, one of the necessary preconditions for scripture is the fact that God exists. The Bible makes many more claims of its divine authorship and although as revelation it shows the internal consistency, we cannot use it to be a demonstrative proof for authenticity to an unbeliever. Once the first step is established of providing reasonable evidence for the existence and interaction of this Divine Author, we can then warrant a fortiori the veracity of the Bible and external correspondence to truth.

 The Inerrancy of Scripture as the Word of God 

Another area that will be evident by unpacking the Metaphysical precondition is whether or not in the pursuit of Bibliology we can find the Bible to be accurate. Once the divine authorship is established, we need to see if what He has inspired and co authored is accurate according to the witness of scripture itself (2 Tim 3:16). It was Arthur Holmes who stated, “All truth is God’s truth.” If this statement is true, then whatever God relays has to be true. Furthermore, according to the writer of Hebrews, God cannot lie (6:18). The author of Hebrews probably had in mind verses such as the one found in Numbers where Balaam was telling Balaac that “God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should repent. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it?” The internal evidence has shown that if God is true what he authors has to consequently be true. Nevertheless, we need to establish the external evidence to see if truth in scripture is authenticated by the veracity of the Author. The internal witness says that the Author is incapable of error because he cannot lie.

What metaphysical qualities can we discover in God to prove that what He authors is true and also errorless? We claim that the Bible does not contain error.

However, the allegations against this claim come from both sides of the fence. Skeptics vehemently voice that the Bible is so full of errors it cannot be trustworthy, not to mention a book that shows the way to eternal life with God. The liberals, on the other hand, in order to circumvent the responsibility of taking some time to actually think these issues through, punt the ball by saying that the Bible just “contains the word of God.” Although this statement seems harmless at first glance, it is a copout that leaves open the possibility for the Bible to also contain errors. But as we shall see in the ensuing paragraphs, if God says who he says He is, then God cannot err.

  The Metaphysical Unpacking of Theism 

Although this theme can be unpacked to overwhelming amounts, we will briefly put it in a nutshell. Our first task is to see if there is God and if the description thereof corresponds to authenticating scripture as His word that is true. In addition, his nature and attributes as a Being have to correspond to his work. If his work says that He is one (Deut. 6:4), self-existing (Ex. 3:14), eternal (1 Tim. 1:17) among other attributes, and his existence has to correspond to his word or testimony (Heb. 3:19), there should then be compliment and not controversy.

What you learn though Metaphysics is that God has to be eternal, because if He were in time, then God would go from act to potency and in successive moments. But God is pure actuality. He cannot have potency because then he himself would need an actualizer to activate his potency. God has to also be one because if there were many beings who were all powerful, perfect and eternal, how then can you tell where one ended and where the other started? You cannot have two or more alls! Furthermore, if they were to be distinguished at all, then one would have something that the other one would lack. So in effect, there is one Being who has to be greater than the effects. He is the sufficient reason that explains our Being and continued existence (Col 1:16-18). We cannot cause ourselves because we would have to be ontologically prior to ourselves in order to cause ourselves. But that leads to an infinite regress of causes. There has to be a Being that causes all Being. Although we do not know what this Being is we know that this Being is. We can also deduce some things about him through from his effects. For example, in us humans, if we are limited (experience tells us that we are) then this Being has to be unlimited. If I know contingently and limited, then our Cause has to know unlimitedly and non contingently. In essence, He is the unlimited limiter of all that is limited. Note that not everything we have applies to this Being but that only transcendental properties apply by way of analogy to this Being in an infinite way. God is then real and exists. If God exists, He then is a Being who cannot not exist but gives existence to all other Beings. God’s essence is to exist. Thus, God is perfect. If God is perfect, then his truth cannot have defect. If his truth does not have defect then whatever God says must be true. The Bible is the word of God because Jesus, who is God, confirmed it by his own life and words (John 10:35). So the Bible has to be true.

In effect, the Bible is true because God is true. The Bible has Divine authority because Jesus confirmed it and he was the Son of God confirmed by the prophecies and miracles. The book of Hebrews says that God spoke through many ways and through many prophets. So God is the divine Author of Holy Scripture. And we also see that whatever God does, he does perfectly. He cannot err. So in effect, the Bible cannot contain any errors.

  Faith and Reason 

There is a sense in which the less you know the more you know. The more irrational the faith might get then the more mystical we can feel about the certainty of scripture. There have been known comments that if we go out to prove everything then there will be no more room for faith. The bifurcation between faith and reason has brought serious consequences. This needs to be also evaluated of a proper prolegomena is to be effectuated. Why do we have to delve into the relationship of faith and reason in order to do proper Bibliology? It is important because the wedding and distinction of these two concepts affect the very truths of scripture. For example, although special revelation (the Bible) tells truth it does not contain all of the truth. The same can be said about what can be discovered by natural revelation needs the special revelation to add information we need to make the revelation complete.

  Faith and Reason as Needed in General and Special Revelation  

For example psalm 19 describes this two-step process. If we just believe that “The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament showeth his handiwork” it is enough to shows us that God exists but it is not enough for us to believe in God. This would be enough for intellectual assent but not volitional. (Rom 1:18-20). However, if we just confine ourselves to special revelation then other, broader truths could not be apprehended, judged or proved such as science, mathematics and the arts. So there is an intricate relationship between faith and reason. Lets us look at the several views that could affect the way we do our Bibliology.

  Rationalism 

Rationalism is an approach that pretends to solve all of life’s mysteries and truths by reason alone. There was even an age in which it was called the age of reason where you had people such as Rene Descartes, Spinoza and Leibniz. One of the ideas that rationalists believed were that there were foundational truths that the mind started with that cannot be denied. In reference to Christianity, Rationalism holds that even propositions believe that are solely held by faith can also be held by reason. However, as we will see later, there are some truths in Scripture (although reasonable but self evident in themselves) are only apprehended by special revelation. There has to be a distinction in the limiting scope of reason in relation to matters of faith. Peter Kreeft observes that Anselm leaned toward rationalism when he “tried to prove even the doctrines of the trinity and the incarnation by strict rational philosophical arguments, what he called ‘necessary reasons.’”

  Fideism 

Fideism asserts a type of blind faith that reaches out to the heavens. It is a type of Kierkegaardian leap. Although he was responding to the cold and calculated rationalists of his day, his view (somewhat existential) denied that evidence could be useful in proofs for God. What would be the effect of Fideism on Bibliology? Well, in an Apologetic sense, it would regard the Bible as coherently true but any evidentiary elements that would prove the external veracity of the Bible would be dismissed. This provides for a weak defense of Bibliology. This, I think, also discourages a proper offensive Apologetic in that the person would hide in the closet of subjectivism. In addition, the nature of God is a rational one.

 Unity in Diversity 

For an accurate approach to a rational being that invites us to reason in His scriptures (Isa. 1:18) and yet tells us that without faith it is impossible to please God (notice that it doesn’t say believe), we need to have a shared role of faith and reason. Although they both have functions in matters of belief, they have to be distinguished in purpose and function. These distinctions have to be acknowledged before we do Bibliology.

There are truths that are apprehended by faith without reason. There are also truths that are apprehended by both faith and reason. And finally, there are truths that can be grasped by reason without faith. For faith is an assent of the will toward the unseen. Reason on the other hand, cannot coerce our intellect but only inform it. It is by faith, which is sometimes supported by reason that the intellect assents to in belief. God is the Author of both of these concepts although one has to supersede the other. By supersede it does not mean that it concedes to absurdities but that there are things that cannot be grasped by the senses. It is like a plane that supersedes and not violates the law of gravity when it is in flight. With a proper understanding of faith and reason we can reconcile truths that are both found in special revelation and general revelation.

  The Hermeneutical Precondition 

Now that we have shown that God exists, and that we can talk about him through faith and reason as evidenced and supported by scripture, we will now look at one that runs at the heart of Bibliology. We have established that God cannot err. What usually errs is our interpretation of scripture. With this in mind, a common and sometimes vicious problem that we face now a day is whether there can be any objectivity in interpreting the word of God. People like Derrida, Wittgenstein, and Jean Baudrillard have made waves in interpretation that have had devastating effects. While Frege conventionalized truth down to the stratum of society, Wittgenstein gift-wrapped it in the sphere of word play. And finally, Derrida turned language into a sort of Rubik’s cube that can be deconstructed and constructed in proportion to a rhetorical interpretation. If there is no objectivity then how can we interpret God’s word as a historical event conveying truth that corresponds to reality?

What this does is that it strips all objective meaning from scripture. Historicity, language and interpretation can seem to be affected if there is no objectivity in Interpretation. It all comes down to an issue of truth. Is truth relative or objective? If there are no objective statements than there is one objective statement that is true and mainly it is the one that it is being stated. While Postmodernism reacts to the previous age of Reason it is cutting itself with its own knife. Many of these theories that try to come against the objectivity in Interpretation usually end up in self-referential contradictions. Many times in denying the truth they assert at the same time. Although critics in the New York Post herald people like Derrida as “"perhaps the world's most famous philosopher — if not the only famous philosopher," the issue stands as if these tests for objectivity and meaning really hold up to the test in reality.

 Conclusion 

These areas are just three of twelve preconditions for doing Bibliology. There are many battles that are being fought in the world of ideas both outside (Apologetics) and inside (Polemics). It seems that every so often there is a battle for something going on because of an improper Prolegomena done with Bibliology or even Theology for that matter. Every major Christian doctrine has come under attack in recent times. There has been the battle for the resurrection, for the Bible, and most recently for God. The heretics, not content with tampering with essential doctrines, have aimed to go for the jugular of Theism, God himself. It is up to us to live up to our responsibility and work out the apparent complexities of Bibliology. And if we have a proper Prolegomena, then we can feel assured that we are heading on the right track.

Digg It!

no comments yet.