For Charles Hodge philosophy, science, and theology are not at variance with each other. Therefore, the Scriptures must be interpreted in accordance with established facts.
1.1. The Possibility and Necessity of Supernatural Revelation
Hodge contends that supernatural revelation is both possible and necessary. Contrary to the deistic concept of a distant and removed God, the ‘Bible reveals a God who is constantly and everywhere present with his works, and who acts upon them, not only mediately, but immediately, when, where, and how He sees fit.’[1] Therefore, it is also possible for God to reveal himself to man.
The necessity of supernatural revelation is something felt and anticipated by man. Humans have questions concerning the origin, nature, and destiny of man which reason and philosophy is not able to satisfactorily resolve. Therefore, revelation is necessary and anticipated.
1.2. The Role of Reason in Revelation
1.2.1. Reason Necessary for the Reception of Revelation. Revelation as communication presupposes the capacity to receive it. Unless intellectually apprehended, truths cannot be received as objects of faith.[2] Such intellectual apprehension constitutes knowledge but not exhaustive understanding. We must know the plan of salvation; but no one can comprehend its mysteries.
1.2.2. Reason as Judge of Revelation’s Credibility. Christianity doesn’t demand faith in the impossible. By ‘impossible’ is meant that which involves a contradiction. Scripture itself recognizes the prerogative of reason. The prophets rationally disproved the doctrines of the heathens. Moses taught that the previous, duly authenticated revelation from God must not be contradicted by any other. For any conversation to be meaningful, the laws of reason must stand.
1.2.3. Reason as Judge of Revelation’s Evidences. Faith without evidence is either irrational or impossible. Reason must therefore judge the evidences though in accordance to their own nature. For instance, empirical truth needs empirical evidence, mathematical truth needs mathematical evidence, and moral truth needs moral evidence.
1.3. Revelation and Philosophy
Though theology and philosophy occupy common ground, for theology the authority of the Bible is higher than that of philosophy. The authority of the Bible determines the acceptability or unacceptability of philosophical conclusions. Thus, so far as these philosophical ‘speculations agree with the Bible they are true; and so far as they differ from it, they are false and worthless.’[3] If the Bible teaches that God is a person, then the philosophy that teaches that an infinite being cannot be a person is false. If the Bible teaches that God creates, controls, regenerates, then the philosophy that forbids the assumption that He acts in time, is false.[4] However, since theologians are not infallible, theological modifications are expected.
1.4. General Revelation and Natural Theology
According to Hodge ‘the most obvious and the most effective’ arguments in support of the truths of natural religion are not drawn from external nature but from the constitution of man’s own nature.[5] However, proofs for the existence of God are relative and what may be conclusive for one may be powerless for the other.
Hodge quotes several Scriptures, like Psalm 19: 1-4, 94: 8-10, Acts 14: 15-17, and Romans 1: 19-21, to prove the Scriptural warrant for natural theology.
However, by nature of what the Scripture teaches about sin and salvation, it may be understood that natural theology is insufficient to salvation. Natural theology tells nothing about the wrath of God and the conditions of salvation which can only be known from Scripture.
1.5. The Authority of the Scriptures
To Hodge, the Scriptures as verbally and plenarily inspired contain all the extant revelations of God designed to be a rule of faith and practice to the Church.[6] Therefore, only the Word of God has authority over the people of God. The Bible is the Word of God.
However, the Bible is a plain book that is intelligible by the people. Therefore, all people have the right, and are bound to read and interpret the Bible for themselves, so that their faith may rest on the testimony of the Scriptures, and not on that of the Church.[7]
1.6. Critique
1.6.1. Hodge rightly sees that reason of itself is not able to provide the answers to the questions related to ultimate existence itself. Thus, apart from supernatural revelation there is no way one can have a true knowledge of God, the world, and salvation.
1.6.2. Hodge insists that something about God can be known from nature. However, it only seems more probable that a philosophical analysis of nature only tends in the direction of polytheism or monism. Hodge himself notes that reason has led ‘led the great body of those who know no other guide, into what has been well called, “The Hell of Pantheism.”’[8] In view of this, then, it isn’t clear how he goes on to prove the existence of God based on the classical arguments.[9]
No comments :
Post a Comment