All About GOD - Growing Relationships with Jesus and Others
The Idea of a Philosophy of Revelation 2
Deism, Revolution and Evolution
Prior to 18th century, the old worldview and the reality of special revelation had never been seriously questioned. It was Deism springing up from England, which “emancipated the world from God, reason from revelation, and will from grace” (p. 7). Bavinck mentions deists such as Herbert, Locke, Toland, Collins, Kant, Fichte, and Lessing were the ones who subjected traditional revelation to the critical test of reason. The doctrine of creation is still accepted but with a twist. In their view, the world stands independently from God.
This principle of autonomy transferred to France and was exemplified through the French Revolution of 1789. This Revolution according to Bavinck was not due to the influence of Reformation but from deistic point of view attached to the so-called social contract theory. The aim was to establish the sovereignty of the people. This autonomic experiment was hailed everywhere but its triumph lasted for a brief period of time and ended in disillusionment among its followers.
Due to the failure of the idea of revolution, this principle of autonomy assumed another form. And this time it was in the name of evolution. The 18th century autonomy was not abandoned but changed a different method of application.
Bavinck argues that this idea of evolution is not something new but rooted in Greek philosophy. It was Aristotle who “raised it to the rank of the leading principle of his entire system” (p. 9). But this kind of evolution is an evolution with a definite purpose. And so this idea of evolution was received favorably in Christian theology and philosophy. An attempt was even made to connect this idea of evolution to theism. Bavinck claims that it appears in modern philosophy, in thinkers like Lessing, Herder, Goethe, Schelling, Hegel and numerous historians of distinction.
Some of these thinkers disconnected the idea of evolution from Christian Theism and returned to the ancient pre-Christian naturalism. Bavincks picks Hegel as its representative and from then on the world is perceived as “one mighty process of thought…” (p.10). It is believed that “Whatever exists is therefore pure becoming, not being; it exists for no other purpose but to pass away…the old continually gives way to the new” (p.10). Therefore, violent revolution is no longer considered acceptable for “the eternal spirit itself is unceasingly occupied in breaking down while building up, and in building up while breaking down” (p.11). This Hegelian system is governed by “process, evolution, endless and restless becoming” to a much higher degree, and much more one-sidedly, than those of Aristotle and Leibnitz” (p.11).
Charles Darwin and Karl Marx
However, for the natural sciences, this idea of evolution was too ideal. It cannot accept an evolution with a definite purpose. And so Darwin entered into the scene and removed the idea of purpose from evolution. In the eyes of Darwin, purpose is absurd in a world filled with so much pain. He confirmed this in his scientific investigation. There was no providence, no predetermined plan, no omniscience, no omnipotence, and no goodness of God.
As Darwin saw the misery in nature, Karl Marx witnessed the misery in society. It is interesting to note that in the same year, 1859, two influential books were published that shaped the future of humanity – the Origin of Species by Charles Darwin and A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy by Karl Marx. Friedrich Engels at the grave of Marx in March 17, 1883 “declared that, as Darwin had found the law of the development of organic nature, so Marx had discovered that of the development of human society” (p.12).
Darwin believed that his ideas in the natural sciences have removed the clutches of purpose and supranaturalism once and for all. Karl Marx, on the other hand, was convinced that he had liberated “Socialism from all utopianism and established it on a firm scientific foundation” (ibid.). Both of these men believed “in the promise of a better world, a better race, and a better society” (ibid.) without resorting to supranaturalism or belief in divine purpose in creation and in human society. Marx believed that religion, which he termed as the “ ‘opiate of the people,’ was destined to die a natural death in the perfect society of the future” (ibid.).
This trend of thought signaled an end to the old worldview with its supranaturalistic foundation and its idea of revelation. “The belief that modern natural science with its idea of evolution had made an end to medieval dualism” (p.13) was widely accepted. At last, “the principle of naturalism had permanently triumphed” and the idea of revelation was considered dead. Haeckel declares “all revelations to which religions appeal are pure pigments of human phantasy; the one true revelation is nature itself” (ibid.). Strauss agrees, “The last enemy to be conquered is the conception of another world” (ibid.).
Bavinck appreciates the term evolution as something harmless in itself. However, “the trend of thought by which it has been monopolized, and the system built on it” has given these thinkers “a way to explain the entire world, including man, religion, and morality without the aid of any supranatural” (ibid.) force. The world is free at last from the chain of Medievalism and reason from the falsehood of revelation.
Reference: Bavinck, Herman. The Philosophy of Revelation. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1953.
Views: 50
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Ruel Z Chavez on
-
If my history is correct, I think most of the founding fathers are deists though Benjamin Franklin and George Washington struggle between the influence of puritanism and deism. Yes Deism believes that God created this world but denies His continuous government of this world. It is as if after making this world God abandoned his creation. That is not the picture of God we have in the Bible. God still sustains this world and in Jesus all things hold together. Take Jesus out of human history and this world would have surely spin into chaos.
You are right about postmodernism. For them truth does not exist but truths. To claim that truth exists is considered "arrogant" and divisive. I believe that truth is knowable and accessible in the sense of Romans 1 to every person simply because all are His creatures. They cannot destroy this truth no matter how man denies that he is a creature of God. In Christian philosophy, this is how we put it. All men know God metaphysically or ontologically but denies him epistemologically. In their conscience, they know him but they suppress such knowledge of God in their reasoning. Sin affects not only human behavior but even human reasoning. Mas is under obligation to love God with all his mind and in this sense man has no right to think as if God does not exist. To do such is to deny himself as creature of God and that is not only ingratitude but ignorance of a highest kind. In this sense, human thinking is perceived as something ethical and is bound to obey the word of God. Others would call that "insanity" or "irrationality" but with Bavinck, I call it mental health or believing reason, a reason restored and empowered by faith. :-)
That last verse in Psalm 137 is called "scandalous" in biblical studies. How can God be so cruel to allow killing innocent infants like that? I accept such fact not because I can explain it but because it is there in the word of God.
:-)
Grace and peace my friend!
-
-
-
:-) You're right. Many would argue that 1 + 1 = 3 (or even 4, etc.) but it does not change the fact that the answer is 2.
"When times are good, be happy; but when times are bad, consider: God has made the one as well as the other. Therefore, a man cannot discover anything about his future" (Ecclesiastes 7:14).
-
-
Permalink Reply by RoyW on
-
Ruel,
Excellent article even though difficult to read. I do have a take on the religions of early America and why our founding fathers were considered to be deists and do seem to practice deism. There was a strong sense of freedom and resistance to the norm at that time. They were declaring that man had the right to be free and to be able to freely express himself. They questioned all forms of tyranny including the tyranny of the church. What they became guilty of was placing some of the most precious doctrines of the Bible on the same level of some of the political thinking of the time. I may be wrong but I think they were guilty of succumbing to that which was popular. It is so easy for us to challenge the beliefs of our fathers. I am very guilty of that. I grew up a strong Armenian, for example, and turned into what some would call a Calvinist even though I don't call myself that. I remember my parents and wife's parents thinking I had lost my mind even though my mother has come to believe in many of the same beliefs.
I think freedom is to blame for much of the thinking of the latter 18th century here in America. However, as Adams, Jefferson and others questioned the faith of their parents, they all remained very friendly to the Christian church and seemed rather determined to save it as the foundation upon which our nation would rest. Their thinking indicated that moral people would make better citizens and encouraged that all children would grow to believe in God. Our government has even been guilty of distributing Bibles in its early days.
What they questioned came down to who Jesus was. Was He God or subordinate to God? They all believed in His existence and most believed in His resurrection. Because they did not believe that He was necessarily God, they are called deists. And, of course, that is a proper description. I personally believe they all called on Him before they died and will be heaven but then I am an American. I think it is fairly obvious that their faith came from the Bible.
The early American church struggled in its identity. Today, they all have their statement of faith and all accept that Jesus was God. The Universalist finds a much more minor part in the church today.
I believe our founding fathers would be alarmed at what is happening today in America. We are actually training our children to be naturalists. I believe the church in America is headed for a very rough ride in the near future. Naturalism is taking over. However, the belief in a supernatural God will never be eradicated, here or in the rest of our world. The Gospel had a window which it took advantage of and God's Word to His people has gone out all over the world. His people are rooted in faith and no philosophy will destroy it. There are many on the fringe that will fall away as Jesus and Paul predicts but His Word is rooted in the hearts of many that will define faith for years to come. I am excited to see the faith of so many on this site. If faith can survive the Enlightenment, it can survive anything. This strong naturalistic teaching in America is not going to win the day. Faith will survive. It just may be healthy for the church to have to suffer a little. Persecuted believers can become very powerful.
Darwin's naturalism will not win. Satan so wants to destroy faith but how is that possible? Today, in America, one must declare he is Christian to be elected. One may or may not be but must declare he is. However, much of Christianity today in America is very ignorant. A man can say there are many ways to God and yet many will still call him a Christian. A church that is that ignorant may have to face some tough times.
Anyway, I enjoy reading your writings. I wish every member would have to read your writings and comment. I hope many will.
By the way, Samuel Adams never disavowed the faith of his childhood which like his cousin, John Adams, was Calvinism. And it is to him that we can attribute the Boston Tea Party which really got everything going. That same spirit is finding its way back into America today. The Tea Party still survives. The heart of America is still very strong even though it is not all that popular. There are those of us that still support Israel even though that as well is becoming less popular.
Blessings to you Ruel and your studies,
Roy
-
-
-
Thanks Roy! You're right about the founding fathers. Thank you for that reminder. They were products of their time as we are. It's really difficult to go against the flow especially if you are a public figure. What is commendable is their friendliness towards orthodox Christianity. I think you are also right about freedom but most people fail to distinguish between the freedom of Christianity and the freedom of the natural man. Our freedom is bound to obey the will of God. Theirs is a claim to absolute freedom. I think that is good in a sense that man is liberated from the tyranny of the church. But aiming to be free from God and from His word is a dangerous kind of freedom. It is lawlessness and I think that is the era where we are right now.
The claim to superiority of naturalism is a "thing of the past" as Prof. Bavinck affirms at least in the academe. A new interest to supernaturalism has started since the beginning of the 20th century. This new interest has opened a door both for good and bad concepts of supernaturalism. And I think that's the reason why most people today are returning to mysticism, occultism, magic, astrology, spiritism, and even demon worship. People are seeking for something higher and deeper than what naturalism and rationalism can offer. This is a great time for the church to return to the power of the old rugged cross. This is our message and this is our power. :-)
-
-
-
There is a strong clash between the two worldviews of naturalism and super-naturalism taking place here in America. The debate can be observed through the challenges of evolution v. creationism. Some see the naturalistic explanation as scientific while the supernaturalistic approach is labeled as religion. That view, of course, is ridiculous. Neither view can be substantiated scientifically. However, the parents take children to church where they are taught that God created the world in a very short time. They then go to their schools where they are taught that the Bible is not true and that it took around 15 billion years. There is no way this does not create a sense of confusion in the next generation which several of these generations are now occupying the scene. The chaos that results from the clash results in a vacuum that sucks in the confused into these kinds of spiritism. Probably the only way to avoid the suction vacuum is to eliminate the confusion. We can eliminate the confusion simply by becoming truly scientific and leave the philosophy at higher levels.
Blessings,
Roy
-
-
-
Yes, there is nothing new. The names may vary but the substance remains the same.
-
-
-
No, it is not okay but if they did call on Jesus before they died, they would be saved. Some believe that some were really Christian with a more modern deistic view. Others believe they were deists that were friendly towards Christianity. But to be really clear, one must accept the deity of Christ in order to be saved. Believing He was just a good man would not get the job done. I personally do not believe it is possible to reject John 1:1-2 and be saved.
Thanks for pointing out that confusing statement.
-
Welcome to
All About GOD
The Good News
Meet Face-to-Face & Collaborate
© 2024 Created by AllAboutGOD.com.
Powered by
