A.H. Strong: Responding to an Objection to the Possibility of Theology, (p 3 of 3) ccel.org/ccel/strong It has been objected, that since God and these relations are apprehended only by faith, they are not proper objects of knowledge or subjects for science. For a third answer, we reply: Faith is an indispensable part of a scientific theology; it is not only a kind of sensory organ that apprehends knowledge, but it apprehends the highest kind of such knowledge. It provides an understanding of reality that overcomes the limitations of that which is only sensible by observation and measurement. It gives people an understanding of the realities of God’s existence, and at least some of the relations between God and his creation. Some make faith a joint faculty between intellect and will [1], while others speak not simply of “the aesthetic reason”, but also of the “moral reason”[2]. Others [3] indicate that “Faith is the certainty of a matter in which verification is not attainable.” or note [4] “belief consists in accepting the affirmations of the soul - unbelief in rejecting them”, while others note [5] “faith is the synthesis of the reason and will, and by a virtue of reason, faith must be a light, a form of knowing, a beholding of truth”. Faith then [5] , should not be labelled as “blind” and pictured metaphorically as a blind girl clinging to a cross, “or else the cross may just as well be a crucifix or an image of Gaudama”. A blind unbelief, not blind faith is what is sure to be in error, and in vain. In our consciences we recognize an invisible authority, and know the truth only in the proportion to which our acts conform to it, so in religion only holiness can understand holiness, and only love can understand love [6] for “he that does the truth comes to the light”. If a right state of heart is indispensable for faith, and to the true knowledge of God, can there be any theology for non-believers? Yes, we answer, just as a blind man can have a science of optics. He can have the testimony of others who can see, and a corresponding confirmation of that knowledge according to whatever dimness of light he is able to perceive himself. The non-believer can know God as power and justice, and can fear him. But this is not a knowledge of God’s inmost character; it furnishes some material for an inadequate natural theology, but it is not enough for a correct theology. So, for his scientific inquiry to be made complete, the blind man must have the defect of his eyes corrected, perhaps by a medical procedure performed by a competent eye-doctor; so, to have any complete or satisfactory theology, the veil of spiritual blindness must be taken away from the non-believers heart by God himself[7]. This doctrine that faith is knowledge, and even the highest form of knowledge should be distinguished from Ritschl[8], whose theology appeals to the heart to the exclusion of the head; appeals to the fiducia without the noticia[9] is blind, irrational and unscientific. Others [10] similarly fell into into a deep speculative philosophical error when over simplifying human knowledge as limited to only that which is apparent. The appeal from the head to the heart should instead be an appeal from the narrower knowledge of mere intellect to the larger knowledge conditioned upon right affection[11]. ==== [1] Philippi, Glaubenslehre, 1:50, follows Gerhard in doing so. [2] Hopkins, Outline Study of Man, 77, 78. [3] Murphy, Scientific Bases of Faith, 91, 109, 145, 191 [4] Emerson, Essays, 2:96 [5] Morell, Philos. of Religion, 38, 52, 53, quotes Coleridge [6] John 3:21 [7] 2 Cor 3:15-16 “a veil lies upon their heart, but when a person turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away” [8] Albrecht Ritschl, contemporary to A.H. Strong, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albrecht_Ritschl [9] see a discussion on faith as fiducia, notitia, and assensus, for one such example: earngey.info/2010/07/31/what-is-faith-fiducia-notitia-and-assensus/ ; “Saving faith is usually explained as having three components, the first two belonging to the intellect and comprising the category of cognitio certa, certain cognition, the latter one belonging to the will: (1) notitia, knowledge, the actual content of the gospel and the promises of God; (2) assensus, assent, by which the intellect acknowledges the truth of notitia, apart from any personal trust or saving appropriation of that knowledge; (3) fiducia, trust or appreheniso fiducialis, faithful apprehension, which appropriates savingly, by an act of the will, the true knowledge of the promises of God in Christ. Saving faith, therefore, cannot be merely intellectual; it must also be volitional.” [10] Robert Browning [11] See A. H. Strong, The Great Poets and their Theology, 441, for more on Ritschl’s postulates see see Stearns, Evidence of Christian Experience, 274–280, and Pfleiderer, Die Ritschl’sche Theologie. On the relation of love and will to knowledge, see Kaftan, in Am. Jour. Theology, 1900:717; Hovey, Manual Christ. Theol., 9; Foundations of our Faith, 12, 13; Shedd, Hist. Doct., 1:154–164; Presb. Quar., Oct. 1871, Oct. 1872, Oct. 1873; Calderwood, Philos. Infinite, 99, 117; Van Oosterzee, Dogmatics, 2–8; New Englander, July, 1873:481; Princeton Rev., 1864:122; Christlieb, Mod. Doubt, 124, 125; Grau, Glaube als höchste Vernunft, in Beweis des Glaubens, 1865:110; Dorner, Gesch. prot. Theol., 228; Newman, Univ. Sermons, 206; Hinton, Art of Thinking, Introd. by Hodgson, 5. (paraphrased for contemporary readers) amzn.to/KfjIDW
Posted on: Sun, 26 Jan 2014 07:36:18 +0000