Muriwali Yanto Matalu
INTRODUCTION
Epistemology can be defined as
knowledge about knowledge or a theory of knowledge. Where does its source come
from? What is its presupposition? And is the knowledge true? These are important
questions people must answer when they speak about epistemology.
Christian epistemology is different
from that of non-Christians. The epistemology of the non-Christians based on
their belief either in one absolute person of God (Islam and Judaism), in
Brahman (Hinduism) or an-atman (Buddhism), or in materialism and naturalism
(Atheism). On the contrary, Christians base their epistemology on three things.
First, the revelation of God, second, the principle of one and many in the
doctrine of the Trinity, and third, the principle of either/or in the
uniqueness of the person of Jesus Christ.
Since Christians and non-Christians have
different epistemologies, there is no the same point of reference between their
knowledge. It means therefore when Christians speak about God, what they mean
and what others mean are different. For instance, if a non-Christian is Moslem,
the term God for him means Allah of Koran. If he holds Judaism, he believes in
Jehovah without Trinity. On the contrary, Jesus' followers believe in one God
in His nature and three in His persons. They know this God through Christ, the
Maker and Redeemer. Another example, the chief end of a Christian's life is to
glorify God and enjoy Him forever in a respectful and sweet fellowship, whose fullness
they will receive in the future at the time of consummation. Indeed, this
perspective is very different from that of pantheism. The pantheistic Hinduism
thinkers believe that the chief end of man is how the self (atman) becomes one
with the universe (Brahman), or according to Buddhists how the self (atman)
moves away to non-self (an-atman). Compare also with the perspective of
materialism and naturalism which is in accord with the spirit, "Let us eat
and drink, for tomorrow we die!" (See I Corinthians 15:32). As a result,
it is reasonable to conclude that the knowledge of the non-Christian is
different from that of non-Christian, and consequently an absolute antithesis
between them is inevitable.[1]
THE REVELATION OF GOD
Two aspects of God's revelation are,
general and special. In the conception of Van Til, these aspects are equal in
authority and only different in their aims. He says that like the special revelation,
the general revelation is also important, authoritative, sufficient, and clear
for its aim.[2]
Based on Van Til's view, the revelation
of God as the foundation of the Christian epistemology will be
discussed. According to the Scripture, Christian God is the only true God, as a result people can say that His knowledge is the only true knowledge.
Furthermore, it is important to know that God has revealed this knowledge to
us. That is about God, ourselves, and other creation. The question is how do
people know that God had revealed it? To answer people must start from the
Scripture and not from the general revelation because the Bible clearly states
that God had revealed Himself through the general revelation but sinners
suppress the truth in unrighteousness (Rm. 1:18).
However further questions arise. Can
the Christian Scripture give true knowledge about God, human beings, and
nature? Evidentialism apologists try to prove the infallibility of the Bible
through the validity of the data in it by making comparisons with the data of
history and archeology. Christian apologist like R.C. Sproul (also a Reformed
theologian) has this position. He says that if there is any subject that has
given us reason for optimism about the infallibility of the Scripture, the
subject must be the research of history.[3] He also says that the
scrolls from Ugarit, Qumran, and Ebla have made many contributions to our
understanding of the ancient age. The Nuzi and Armenia tablets have solved many
problems in the Old Testament.[4] But the
question is, why does the research of history must give us optimism, and
why does not lay on the fact that the Bible is true because it is the word of
God? Reformed presuppositionalism argument says that history and archeology
cannot test the Scripture because it, as God's word, is the highest
standard, therefore history, archeology, philosophy, psychology, science,
and other subjects must subordinate to it. Indeed, history and archeology
as well as other subjects have many contributions to our understanding of the
ancient time, but it is incorrect to say that the research of these subjects must
determine our optimism about the Bible. The Christian true optimism about the
infallibility of Scripture lies in the fact that it is revealed and inspired[5] by God. This
statement is generally held by Reformed theologians.[6]
Inerrancy & infallibility
The inerrancy and the infallibility are usually referred to as the original text (autograph), as W. Gary Crampton describes that when we speak about the infallibility/inerrancy of the Christian Scripture it means that we speak about the original manuscript.”[7] If Christians refer to the infallibility of the autograph, do the manuscripts can also be infallible? The answer is, that the manuscripts are also the word of God which has authority, for God who gave the original text is also the God who has sovereignty to give providence to the manuscripts.
Justification
The justification of the Bible first comes from its texts. The infallibility and inerrancy, the harmony of its logic, and the validity of the prophecies in it are the way of its justification. Van Til says that even the words "I am thirsty" had been said by Christ on the cross so as that be in harmony with what had been written in the Bible.[8] Second, the justification also comes from God, especially the Holy Spirit. John Calvin says:
For as God alone can properly bear witness to his own words, so these words will not obtain full credit in the hearts of men, until they are sealed by the inward testimony of the Spirit. The Spirit therefore, who spoke by the mouth of the prophets must penetrate our hearts, in order to convince us that they faithfully delivered the message with which divinely intrusted.[9]
To conclude, the Bible is true because
it is the word of God through revelation and inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
God cannot be false (err), therefore the Scripture as the word of God also
cannot be false. The infallible and inerrant revelation of God becomes the base
of the Christian theory of knowledge (epistemology) about God, man, and other
creations. Moreover, this biblical knowledge is logically sustained by two
principles: the one and many of the Triune God and the logic of either/or that
comes from the uniqueness of God especially the uniqueness of Jesus Christ.
THE ONE AND MANY PRINCIPLE
The one and many principle is usually
referred to as metaphysics and not to epistemology. However, there is a close
relationship between this principle with epistemology. For example, the logic
in God cannot exist without presupposing one and many. Since God is one in His
nature and three (many) in His persons, the logic in Him can exist. If God's
personality is only one, there are no other objects (or persons) to think of or
to be conscious of, and consequently logic and consciousness cannot exist in Him.
Logic and consciousness need a subject that thinks and an object (or some
objects) to think of. Shedd describes, "I cannot be conscious of a thing
unless there is a thing to be conscious of. Take away all objects of thought,
and I cannot think.[10]" Based on this
argument people might also refer to the unity and diversity in the realm of
epistemology.
The one and many problem has become the
problem of philosophy since the age of Thales. He says that the substance of
all things is water.[11] Therefore he
stresses the oneness (unity) of all things. This doctrine has been refused by
others like Empedocles and Anaxagoras. For example, Empedocles says that there
are four primer substances: air, water, fire, and land,[12] and Anaxagoras
says that there are so many substances.[13] Indeed, these
philosophers stress the plurality (diversity) of the universe. But another
philosopher, Parmenides, stresses again the unity of all things. He thinks that
existence must be one and there are no other things that exist.[14] However,
Heraclitus refuses this tenet and says (in Aristotle's words), “that all
sensible things are ever in a state of flux and there is no knowledge about
them.”[15]
Plato teaches about the existence of
two worlds: the world of matter and the world of idea. By idea, he means the
ultimate reality or primer reality (eidos).[16] Plato illustrates
this view in his book "Republic" which is the parable of cave. The
illustration is this: In a dark underground cave, some prisoners are tied since
their early ages, and they can only see the wall in front of them. Through the
light behind them, they can see the shadows of men who walk and do all their
activities behind the prisoners. Indeed, they assume that the shadows of the
men are the true reality. But one of them can escape and go out from the cave
and consequently, he can see the world out of the cave. That is the true world.
Then he comes back to the cave and tells his friends that what they see in the
cave is not the true reality. But all of them do not believe his words.[17] Through this
illustration, Plato distinguishes between the world of ideas which is rational,
and the world of matter which is only open to man's senses.[18] The world of ideas
is immutable and eternal, but the world of matter is relative and mutable.[19] For example, if
someone sees many horses in this world, these horses are relative and mutable.
But the idea of the horse which exists in the world of ideas is absolute,
perfect, and immutable. Therefore, it could be said that Plato teaches about
the oneness (unity) of the substance in the world of idea and the plurality
(diversity) in the world of matter.
On the contrary, Aristotle, Plato’s
disciple, teaches against his master’s doctrine when he says, “Again it must be
held to be impossible that the substance and that of which it is the substance
should exist apart; how, therefore, can the Ideas, being the substances of
things, exist apart?”[20] Then he gives a
different solution from that of Plato when he says that everything consists of
matter (hyle) and form (morphe).[21] Here Aristotle
refuses the teaching of Plato about the world of ideas and says that things
always matter and form.
Now we turn to the East. In a
pantheistic worldview, especially in the Hinduism of Shankara, plurality is
viewed as an illusion.[22] Shankara sees
self (atman) as the only reality and all other things are the impact of the
foolishness.[23] By self
(atman), Shankara does not mean ego (ahankara), but the self that is hidden in
the deepness, and when this self is known, it means that there is no
foolishness and illusion (maya), and there is no microcosm or macrocosm.[24] In Vedic tradition,
it is explained that the self which has been realized (known) has become one
with Brahman (the only one Entity).[25] Indeed, this
pantheistic worldview stresses unity and refuses plurality because it is viewed
as an illusion.
A thinker from China, Laozi, says that what lacks constancy is not the experienced world of particular physical objects, but the system of name use.[26] All things that exist cannot change and only names (and their distinctions) do.[27] According to Chad Hansen, Laozi and the thinkers of Daoism are different from Heraclitus who says that all things are mutable although the Daoists never think that things are immutable because they do not doubt that things change. It is only Buddhists and lonians ever seriously thought that things are always changing.[28] Another Chinese thinker, Hui Shi, argues that distinctions do not exist in the world.[29] Therefore this view is pantheistic in its characteristic. He is well known for his ten theses:[30]
1. The greatest has nothing outside it;
call it the great one. The smallest has nothing within it; call it the small
one.
2. That which has no thickness cannot
accumulate though it can be as large as a thousand li (miles).
3. Heaven is as low as earth; mountains
and swamps are level.
4. As the sun is once in the center, once
on the side, so thing-kinds are once living, once dying.
5. There is a great similarity and it is
different from a small similarity; call this small comparison. All thing-kinds
are ultimately similar and ultimately different; call this great comparison.
6. South at once has no limit and has a
limit.
7. Today I go to Yue and yet yesterday
arrived there.
8. Interlocked rings can be untangled.
9. I know the center of the world: north
of Yin (a northern state) and south of Yue (a southern state).
10. Exhaustively love all thing-kinds. Heaven and earth are one ti
(part).
These theses contradict each other, but by doing so, he maintains that
this world is one and there is no difference in it.
What is the Christian answer to this
problem? Believers say that all things are always seen as one and many because
they are reflecting their Maker; the Trinity God. Therefore, on the one hand,
when people just stress unity, it is meaningless. For instance, if the color of
this world is just only white, people cannot know about the meaning of colors.
Another example, if this world consists of water only, people cannot have any
meaning about this world. Rushdoony is quite right when he says that if day and
night are one, good and evil are one, and life and death are one, there is no
meaning.[31] On the other hand,
when someone speaks about plurality (diversity) without unity also has a significant problem because diversity without unity is chaos. For example, people can
hardly speak about the plurality of a family (the uniqueness of each of its
members such as father, mother, and children) without its unity. By discarding
its oneness we will only meet a disorderly family.
Many philosophers – as it is stated above – speak much about the relationship of unity and diversity, yet when they seek the substances of unity and diversity, they only get an abstraction. Van Til says:
In seeking for an answer to the one and many questions, philosophers have admittedly experienced great difficulty. The many must be brought into contact with one another. But how do we know that they can be brought into contact with one another? How do we know that the many do not simply exist as unrelated particulars? The answer given is that in such a case we should know nothing of them; they would be abstracted from the body of knowledge that we have; they would be abstract particulars. On the other hand, how is it possible that we should obtain a unity that does not destroy the particulars? We seem to get our unity by generalizing, by abstracting from the particulars in order to include them into larger unities. If we keep up this process of generalization till we exclude all particulars, granted they can all be excluded, have we then not stripped these particulars of their particularity? Have we then obtained anything but an abstract universal?[32]
Consequently, the possible answer to be
given here: It is only in the light of the doctrine of the Trinity, that all
these philosophical problems get their right answer. In ”The Defense of The
Faith” Van Til states that it is solely in the doctrine of the Trinity, people have a concrete universal. In other words, in the
being of God, all particulars relate to the universal where the universal is
fully expressed in the particulars.[33]
THE LOGIC OF EITHER/OR
Now we speak about the logic of either/or (law of non-contradiction).[34] Aristotle is the
first who use this kind of logic.[35] However, it was
not Aristotle the author of this logic. Reformed Christians believe that in
common grace God had made this law known by Aristotle.[36] In other words,
people can say that this principle is God’s law which comes from His
rational nature.
What is the definition of this law?
Ronald Nash says that the law of non-contradiction can be explained that A
cannot be B and non-B at the same time and with the same definition.[37] This logic of
non-contradiction can be applied as follows: If A is a cat, the cat cannot
belong to animals and at the same time and definition also belongs to trees.
There are no parts of human life and the whole universe that can escape from this logic. Even if someone is keeping silent, the existence of this law is being stated, because when people are keeping silent they are not speaking and when they are speaking they are not keeping silent. In contrast to this logic, there is another kind of "logic," namely the "logic" of both/and. This one can be defined as follows: If there are two or more statements that contradict each other, people can still believe that these statements are the same true. Indeed, this is a false logic and has pantheistic characteristics. Ramakrishna, a pantheism thinker, says that all religions are the same, and these religions are only different ways toward God. According to him, one religion calls this God God (Christian), another religion calls Him Allah (Islam), others call Him Jehovah (Judaism), and the rest call Him Brahman (Hinduism).[38] He makes an illustration to explain this view:
There was a man who worshipped Shiva but hated all other deities. One day Shiva appeared to him and said, 'I shall never be pleased with thee so long as thou hatest the other gods.' But the man was inexorable. After a few days, Shiva again appeared to him and said, 'I shall never be pleased with thee so long as thou hatest.' The man kept silent. After a few days, Shiva again appeared to him. This time one side of his body was that of Shiva, and the other side was that of Vishnu. The man was half pleased and half displeased. He laid his offerings on the side representing Shiva and did not offer anything to the side representing Vishnu. Then Shiva said, 'Thy bigotry is unconquerable. I, by assuming this dual aspect, tried to convince thee that all gods and goddesses are but various aspects of the one Absolute Brahman.[39]
Indeed, this illustration has both/and
spirit, and as a false logic, it has a contradictory factor. For example, when
Christians say that Jesus Christ is the only God (either/or kind of logic),
Ramakrishna will say that Christians are false to maintain the rightness of his
both/and kind of "logic." But, when he maintains this false logic and makes it
exclusive he has denied the core spirit of both/and and implicitly assumes
the rightness of either/or.
Unfortunately, many believers reject
logic when they speak about the Christian faith. Ronald Nash asserts, for many
Christians, logic is thought of as an enemy of faith.[40] To make this problem
clear, a clarification is needed. If what Christians mean about logic is the false
logic of both/and, it is correct to reject. But as far as it is about
the logic of either/or, it is too dangerous for believers to ignore because
people can only understand the truth from the perspective of either/or. There
is a strong tendency in the Christian world to disregard the logic. Christian thinkers have been aware of this ignorance such as Charles Hodge,
Abraham Kuyper, Cornelius Van Til, and Gordon Clark as well as Evangelical
theologians like Carl F. H. Henry and Edward John Carnell who preach and teach the
Gospel of Jesus Christ with strong logic. Today, God also has sent like-minded
people such as R.C. Sproul, Ravi Zacharias, and Stephen Tong.[41]
Moreover, many believers downplay the logic in hermeneutics. But without logic, how do
people think about Jesus' statement in John 14:6 which says: I am the way and
the truth and the life, no one comes to the Father except through me? Can
people apprehend this statement without the operation of the logic of either/or?
Indeed, we have to understand its meaning in light of the law of logic.
CONCLUSION
The bases of the Christian epistemology are: First, the revelation of God, particularly the Bible, where through it people can obtain a true understanding of God, humanity, and other creatures (nature). Furthermore, Christians' understanding about these things is confirmed by the two principles: The one and many and the logic of either/or. The concept of one and many flows from the Trinity as one nature and three Persons (also as one nature and many attributes). The logic of either/or flows from the uniqueness of God, especially the uniqueness of the person of Jesus Christ. Thus, the idea one and many and the law of logic become the second and the third bases of the Christian epistemology.
[1] Cornelius Van
Til holds this position, see Cornelius Van Til, Christian Apologetics (Phillipsburg:
P&R pub.co., 2003), 31-34.
[2] See
Cornelius Van Til, Christian Apologetics, 69-82.
[3] R. C.
Sproul, Mengapa Percaya (Malang: SAAT, 1999), 16.
[4] Sproul, Mengapa Percaya, 16.
[5] See the
distinction between revelation and inspiration in Charles
Hodge, Systematic Theology Vol. I. (Grand Rapids: Wm.B. Eerdmans
Pub. Co., 1979), 155.
[6] For example, see the
statement of Charles Hodge that the infallibility of the Bible and its divine
authority are from the fact that the Bible is the word of God, and that the Bible
is the word of God because it was given through the inspiration of the Holy
Spirit, in Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology Vol. I (Grand Rapids,
Michigan: Wm.B. Eerdmans, 1979), 158. Compare also with the statement of W.
Gary Crampton who says that refusing the inerrancy of the Bible is to call God a liar,
but God cannot lie (Titus 1:2), in W. Gary Crampton, Verbum Dei [Alkitab:
Firman Allah] (Surabaya: Mementum, 2000), 67.
[7] Crampton, Verbum Dei [Alkitab: Firman Allah], 63.
[8] Cornelius Van
Til, “My Credo” in Jerusalem and Athens, ed. E.R. Geehan
(Phillipsburg: P&R, 1980), 6.
[9] John
Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book 1.VII.4,
trans. Henry Beveridge (Grand Rapids: Wm.B. Eerdmans, 1997), 72.
[10] William
G.T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, ed. Alan W. Gomes
(Phillipsburg, New Jersey: 2003), 169.
[11] Aristotle,
“Metaphysics, Book I (A),” in The Complete Works of Aristotle Vol. II,
trans. W. D. Ross, ed. Jonathan Barnes (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press, 1991), 7.
[12] Aristotle, “Metaphysics, Book I (A),” 7.
[13] Aristotle, “Metaphysics, Book I (A),” 7.
[14] Aristotle, “Metaphysics, Book I (A),” 12.
[15] Aristotle, “Metaphysics, Book I (A),” 13
[16] Simon Petrus L.
Cahyadi, Petualangan Intelektual: Konfrontasi Dengan Para
Filsuf Dari Zaman Yunani Hingga Zaman Modern (Yogyakarta: Kanisius,
2008), 48.
[17] Plato,
“Republic, Book VII,” in Plato Complete Works, trans. G.M.A.
Grube, rev. C.D.C. Reeve, eds. John M. Cooper, D. S. Hutchinson (Indianapolis:
Hackett Publishing Company, 1997), 1132-1134.
[18] Simon Petrus L.
Cahyadi, Petualangan Intelektual, 50.
[19] Cahyadi, Petualangan Intelektual, 50.
[20] Aristotle,
“Metaphysics, Book I (A),” 19-20.
[21] Cahyadi, Petualangan Intelektual, 66.
[22] Heinrich
Zimmer, Sejarah Filsafat India, ed. Joseph Cambell (Yogyakarta:
Pustaka Pelajar, 2003), 393.
[23] Zimmer, Sejarah Filsafat India, 393.
[24] Zimmer, Sejarah Filsafat India, 393.
[25] Zimmer, Sejarah Filsafat India, 409.
[26] Chad
Hansen, A Daoist Theory Of Chinese Thought: A Philosophical
Interpretation (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992), 218.
[27] Hansen, A Daoist Theory Of Chinese Thought, 218.
[28] Hansen, A Daoist Theory Of Chinese Thought, 218.
[29] Hansen, A Daoist Theory Of Chinese Thought, 262.
[30] Hansen, A Daoist Theory Of Chinese Thought, 262.
[31] Rousas John
Rushdoony, “The One and Many Problem - Contribution of Van Til” in Jerusalem
and Athens, ed. E.R. Geehan (Phillipsburg: P&R, 1980), 339.
[32] Cornelius Van
Til, The Defense of the Faith (Phillipsburg, New Jersey:
P&R, 1967), 25-26.
[33] Van Til, The Defense of the Faith, 26.
[34] The readers have to
know that, first, in this part, we do not speak about Kierkegaard's Either/Or.
Why does Kierkegaard use the title Either/Or for his book, Howard V.
Hong and Edna H. Hong say, "Kierkegaard's first use of the title phrase 'either/or' is also found in Irony in its Latin form aut/aut. Later,
the Danish form found currency even on Copenhagen streets. As Kierkegaard
remarked, 'I am without authority, only a poet-but oddly enough around
here, even on the street, I go by the name 'Either/Or' '" in
Kierkegaard, Either/Or, ed. & trans. Howard V. Hong
& Edna H. Hong (Princeton, NJ.: Princeton University Press, 1987), x. So
the content of of Kierkegaard's book does not speak about the logic of
either/or. Second, the terms of either/or and law
of non-contradiction are equal.
[35] We can read
this kind of logic in Aristotle, ”Prior Analytics, Book I,” in The
Complete Works of Aristotle Vol. I, trans. A. J. Jenkinson, ed. Jonathan
Barnes (Princeton, NJ: 1991), 2-3.
[36] This view is based on the Reformed doctrine of common
grace. For example, see the explanation of Louis Berkhof on common grace that
God can give many good things to all men where this grace does not pardon nor
purify human nature but it curbs the destructive power of sin, maintains in a
measure the moral order of the universe, thus making an orderly life possible,
distributes in varying degrees gifts and talent among men, promotes the
development of science and art, and showers untold blessings upon the children
of men, in Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology [New
Combined Edition] (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1996), 434.
[37] Ronald
Nash, Konflik Wawasan Dunia (Surabaya: Momentum, 2000), 76
[38] Twenty
Questions, An Introduction to Philosophy, ed. G. Lee Bowie, Meredith W.
Michaels, Robert C. Solomon (San Diego New York Chicago Austin
Washington, D.C. London Sydney Tokyo Toronto: Harcourt Brace Jovanovic, Pub.,
1988), 40.
[39] Twenty Questions, An Introduction to Philosophy, ed. G. Lee Bowie, 41.
[40] Nash, Konflik Wawasan Dunia, 76.
[41] By mentioning all these names, the aim of the author is only to show that they are Christians who use strong logic in their teaching and preaching. Of course, it does
not mean that the author agrees with all their teachings.
Komentar
Posting Komentar