Compared to the Roman Catholic schools, the Reformed tradition of schooling is a relative newcomer to the Australian scene. It is represented in Australia by the Christian Parent-controlled Schools (CPCS). The umbrella network of most of these is Christian Education National (CEN). The basic 'in-theory' positions of these schools can be found in the Educational Creed of the CEN. What is immediately obvious is a far more pessimistic view of the human capacity to acquire knowledge on account of the ‘noetic effects of sin’ – namely, that sin has affected our natural human capacity to know things about ourselves, the world and God. The noetic effects of sin means that man without grace, whilst able to discern some correct knowledge of the world, has a thoroughly anti-God foundation at the heart of his knowledge. Thus, to know truly, one's heart must first be changed by grace, so that one then gains true noetic foundations. Additionally, teaching should be done out of a Christian worldview since a non-Christian worldview is idolatrous. This also requires teachers to themselves be Christians, since not only are they teaching that worldview but modelling it also.
For the Reformed schools (and for Reformed thinkers such as the US theologian John Frame), the Bible is ‘indispensable and determinative for our knowledge of God, of ourselves, and of the rest of creation.’ This means that the Bible is absolutely central to the whole educational task, for without it, there is no remedy to the corruption of the human ability to know even quite basic things about the world. This corruption is so extensive that ‘no area of human knowledge is free of this sinful falsifying.’ Only where ‘the fear of God is re-established by God's grace in the heart of men as the indispensable foundation of all wisdom and knowledge’ is there true education. Whereas in the Roman Catholic view grace comes from the redemptive work of Christ accessed in the sacramental ministry of the Church, in this context grace is received through the inscripturated Word of God by the activity of the Holy Spirit.
The Reformed Schools’ position is quite hostile to the notion that knowledge from secular sources can be successfully appropriated into the Christian worldview:
… although, by the grace of God, men who reject the Word of God as the ordering principle of life provide many valuable insights into the common structure of reality, yet because the religious direction of their thought remains radically opposed to that of the covenant community in Christ, there can be no possibility of a synthesis of their systems of thought with the scripturally directed thought which Christ's covenant community is called to pursue.
Common grace operates in order to enlighten even unbelievers as to aspects of the reality of the world, but the mind hostile to God cannot easily segue into ‘scripturally directed thought’. Indeed there is a skeptical approach to the possibility of unbelievers knowing anything much at all.
Whereas the Roman Catholic view is too blithe about the effects of sin on humanity’s ability to successfully know things about the world, the Reformed Schools view is far too pessimistic. There are instances in Scripture itself where wisdom gleaned from pagans is appropriated into the divine revelation (Proverbs, Acts 17). The noetic effects of sin grip us most in the areas of theology and morality – but in other areas the distortion is surely less acute. The non-Christian scientist may indeed make an extraordinary and completely rational contribution to human knowledge – and that contribution may be untainted by their unbelief.
Furthermore, this view makes Scripture do work that it is not designed to do. John Frame, for example, claims to be articulating a ‘biblical epistemology’. But Scripture offers us no such thing. It certainly has things to say that are relevant to epistemology, but to say that it offers a single epistemological approach is simply a confusion of categories. We may even say that Scripture does not offer a complete world view, either: it requires supplementing from other sources.
11 comments:
Hi Mike,
Will pop over for that book this arvo!
Just thought I'd throw my 2 cents of support in behind Frame for a moment though. He's critical of Van Til's presuppositionalism in certain areas, and does actually claim that unbelievers can know things truly (DoKG). I don't think he'd find any worries at all with Proverbs and Acts 17.
Anyway, all this by way of wondering whether you're being a little harsh on his (quite well thought through) position....?
No, not too harsh. In his book Frame addresses the unbeliever's knowledge of God and does admit that unbelievers believe some truths about God. But he seems pretty dubious as to whether they can KNOW them.
In presuppositionalism - even as Frame outlines it - the sharp noetic antithesis between believer and unbeliever is way overdrawn in my view.
I can't shake from myself the suspicion that Sydney Anglicanism with it's "middle of the road" evidentialist epistemology has fallen into a kind of semi-Pelagianism (or... a semi-demi-Pelagianism... or as non-Pelagian as you can possibly get while still actually BEING Pelagian).
Exhibit A: The local office of Campus Bible Study, when I was an undergrad, was always well stocked with Josh McDowell's *Evidence that Demands a Verdict*, and they used to love selling copies!
I'm really interested in hearing what you have to say on the relationship between this area and soteriology. As long as you treat them separately, you don't really have to deal with the consequences of what you're saying!
Hi Michael,
Continued thanks for a series of thoughtful reflections. I'd be interested, if you have time, to know what's behind this statement:
"The noetic effects of sin grip us most in the areas of theology and morality – but in other areas the distortion is surely less acute."
Is your evidence for this statement anecdotal (i.e. non-Christian thought in areas other than theology and morality just seems to "work" so it must be OK?) Or do you have a theological rational for this statement?
Furthermore, are you making a theological statement here that sin affects us in some areas more than others?
So, according to the Reformed tradition, how could Abraham, Moses and David have trully known God, themselves and the world, since they did not have the benefit of scripture? Yet scripture itself asserts that these individuals did trully know God.
Apologies if I have misunderstood the Reformed position.
@Kien - well, Moses and David and Abraham had the word of God, didn't they?
@Nathan - my evidence is twofold. Firstly, when Scripture speaks of the noetic effects of sin, it seems to be talking about these areas. See Romans 1, for example.
Second, observation of thought in other areas is definitely on the table. I don't call this just anecdotal! The power and scope and depth of the discoveries of Newton, Einstein, Crick & Watson etc provide remarkable insight into the way the world actually is.
Good summary. Sometimes, it can feel as though taking our doctrine of sin seriously means a race to the bottom, as though we were seeking to outdo one another in pessimism concerning humanity.
Total depravity means neither that things are bad as they can be nor that everything is equally bad, only that there is nothing in us untouched by sin. That is bad enough.
Is there a problem (in this position) with ill-defined use of the word 'knowledge'?
For instance, you introduce one quotation with the phrase 'knowledge from secular sources', but the quotation mentions 'systems of thought'. The idea of a system strikes me as important - the overall orientation and (claimed) coherence.
If the system is in error, it's easy to see how an unbeliever can have real & accurate knowledge that is at the same time essentially sinful, because the knowledge is used to reject God.
But I guess it's a question of if this epistemological school does emphasise system more than specific data. That's what I know nothing about!
I'm with Mark (above) - I think you may be misrepresenting John Frame's position.
He explicitly says in DKG that natural revelation is useful in defining the 'biblical' worldview. I take it that when Frame uses terms like 'biblical epistemology' he means 'epistemology informed by Scripture'.
Perhaps: but I am still quite unsure as why there has to be such a thing as a 'biblical epistemology'... this seems especially dubious to me.
Bahnsen, in his analysis of Van Til, called it "revelational epistemology." Is that any better?
Post a Comment