would not tend to minimize the uniqueness of Christianity. As mentioned above, using episte mological terminology we would have to label the unique experimental as pect of Christianity as subjective in tuition. For if there is no inward transformation, no inner freedom, no awareness of the nearness, the holi ness of God, no victory after struggle, no peace and no love, then the claims of Christianity are false. Three propo sitions should make this clear: First, God is love, and love is not pure thought even though symbolized by a word. Second, the Holy Spirit is power (Ye shall receive power after . . . the Holy Ghost is come upon you), and again, power and pure thought are not the same. Thirdly, the peace of God is unique (My peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you). It is an in ner experience of such type that can not be derived in any way ex cept through God. Again, the word peace is a symbol standing not for pure thought bul for an inner, in tuitive experience, and the verifica tion of an intuition is the intuition itself, not some a priori category of logic. Rational thought here functions as a neutral field of symbols which are used to represent and communi cate ideas standing for intuitions derived from either the world of sense experience, or from inner experience. And it will not do for the empiri cist to dismiss the entire field of in ner experience by labelling it psy chological and assuming that this way he has explained away its fac tual potential, nor will it do for the theological rationalist to dismiss it as “ ineffable.” To answer the empiricist, whether all inward experiences are basically of the same type, or whether there be some exhibiting a noetic quality differentiating them from pure psychological experience can be determined only a posteriori. Only a person who has actually experienced the love of God can decide whether it is in any way different from other types of psychological emotions. There are at least four aspects to the noetic quality which stamp the experience as unique. First, as a schematized experience, the combina tion of sweetness, holiness, joy and peace of the love of God is different and unique. Second, the experience is accompanied by a definite sensation of emanating from a source other than one’s own self. Thirdly, it car ries with itself the knowledge of be ing the solution to man’s eternal quest, man finds that for which his soul has been continuously searching. And finally, the fact that no self- continued on page 33 THE KING'S BUSINESS
CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS continued To construct a strong apologetic to day one would have to take into ac count that, as far as modern thought is concerned, the methodology of pure reason was the first citadel to be at tacked and to fall. Anselm’s ontologi cal argument is dismissed by modem logic by simply demonstrating the im possibility of deriving a synthetic conclusion from an analytic premise. Empiricism, on the other hand, has survived only in terms of practical applicability, but has resulted in on tological skepticism. Resting on prob ability it has proven itself to be a blind alley to certitude. Now if pure, a priori reason can prove nothing beyond its own existence, is formal, non-factual, conditional or otherwise becomes lost in abstractions (witness the Middle Ages), and if empiricism results in skepticism, it would be dif ficult to fit faith and revelation into either of these epistemological struc tures and still claim that one was meeting the basic arguments of the contemporary opponents of Christi anity. There must be another method, another emphasis which would not only provide the Christian with his basic philosophical orientation but would also constitute his strongest de fense.
basic differentiation of Christians from non-Christians, one of the basic claims of Christianity. The attitude of theologians toward the subjective has varied from Ten nant’s outright denial of its value to Pascal’s and Kierkegaard’s nearly ex clusive emphasis on it. Even St.Au- gustine, though a brilliant specula tive philosopher in the Platonic tradi tion, existed primarily in terms of that marvelous inward transforma tion, the love and intimate awareness of God in the depths of his soul. Other writers, such as Brightman and Car- nell, have emphasized a coherence system, or systematic consistency and inter-relationship within total experi ence. Though this emphasis has uni fying value and satisfies the desire of the intellect for completeness, there are few systems which do not at least aim to be comprehensive and inclu sive, in their own terms, of course. That nevertheless they differ is due to some basic emphasis or assumption which provides the system with its particular orientation. It would seem more important to find the unique factor, the key to the system of Chris tianity, after which the coherence would naturally follow. Basically a system will be judged not so much on the more or less inclusive coher ence, but as to whether some funda mental feature is self-evidently the correct gateway to truth. And if the system as a whole would be the strongest defense of Christianity, it would have to be the most inclusive synthesis yet devised, in itself a glori fication of man’s reason. It is well known, however, that many of the most brilliant and learned thinkers of western civilization have generally not accepted Christianity in its funda mental meaning, undoubtedly be cause of their own coherence theories which they felt were more all-inclu sive than that of the Christian. If God would have desired for man to gain his basic knowledge concerning truth in this way, He could have eas ily arranged it by means of a Pla tonic gateway to heaven. Life often bears out the opposite: We find men like Job, who failing to receive a rational answer to the cry of his soul, “Why do the righteous suffer” , nev ertheless discovers that man can have peace without satisfying the intellect. Once the basic issue has been settled, a coherence is welcome but never de cisive. It is also difficult to see how a primary emphasis on coherence
.While in non-philosophic language we could talk about this unique Christian feature in terms of “heart- faith” or “ inner transformation” , from the standpoint of epistemology we would havç, to define this as the subjective element involving inner in tuition. If it could be shown that this sub jective element is a factual inner ex perience occurring with basic similar effects in thousands of people, then it could properly be labelled “ subjec tive empiricism” subject to its own epistemological laws, and the objec tive (sense) empiricist would have to test it in accordance with this, its own epistemology, or otherwise be dis credited on the same grounds by which he usually tries to discredit his Christian opponents, namely on the grounds of forming invalid a priori judgments. He would have to submit himself, heart, body and soul to the methodology prescribed by Christianity or otherwise have no logical argument against it. And if it could be shown that this subjective element has something unique about it, something that would differentiate it from general psychological experi ences, then this would provide for the 10
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs