theology by establishing its necessary presuppositions without which no theology is possible— the existence and essential nature of God ( see GOD, NATURE OF ), the religious nature of man which enables him to receive a revelation from God, the possibility of a revelation from God, the possibility of a revelation and its actual realization in the Scriptures” (ibid., 9:55, 64). It is “the function of apologetics to investigate, expiate, and establish the grounds on which a theology—a science, or systematized knowledge of God—is possible” (ibid., 9:4). Ww The Importance of Apologetics. Few apologists have ever envisioned a greater role for apologetics than did Warfield. The 1887 inaugural address of his professorship at Princeton, “The Idea of Systematic Theology Considered as a Science,” emphasized apologetics as “a primary part, . . . a conquering part” in the spread of Christian faith. “It is the distinction of Christianity that it has come into the world clothed with the mission to reason its way to Warfield, B. B. Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield (1851–1921) was born near Lexington, dominion. Other religions may appeal to the sword, or seek some other way to propagate Kentucky. He was graduated from the College of New Jersey (later Princeton University) in themselves. Christianity makes its appeal to right reason, and stands out among all religions, 1871 and Princeton Theological Seminary in 1876. After studying at the University of Leipzig therefore, as distinctively the ‘Apologetic religion.’ It is solely by reasoning that it has come thus (1876–1877), he supplied at the First Presbyterian Church in Baltimore, Maryland (1877–1878). far on its way to kingship” ( Selected Shorter Writings , 2:99–100). He taught at Western Theological Seminary, Allegheny, Pennsylvania (1878–1887), before being called to teach theology at Princeton Theological Seminary, where he taught from 1887 On the relation of apologetics to the Bible he said, “It is easy, of course, to say that a until his death. Christian man must take his standpoint not above the Scriptures, but in the Scriptures. He very certainly must. But surely he must first have Scriptures, authenticated to him as such, before he In addition to his biblical and theological writings, Warfield wrote apologetically related can take his standpoint in them” (ibid., 2:98). books and articles, including An Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament (1886), The Gospel of the Incarnation (1893), The Lord of Glory (1907), Counterfeit Miracles Faith and Reason. Warfield believed that the indicia (demonstrations of the Bible’s divine (1918), Revelation and Inspiration (1927), Christology and Criticism (1929), and Studies in character) work side by side with the Holy Spirit to convince people of the truth of the Bible. Tertullian and Augustine (1930). His articles with an apologetic theme included “Revelation” in Warfield agreed with Calvin that proofs cannot bring people to Christ or even convince them of the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (1915),“On the Antiquity and the Unity of the the divine authority of Scripture. Nonetheless, Warfield believed that the Holy Spirit exercises Human Race,” and “The Idea of Systematic Theology.” his convincing power through them. Warfield’s View of Apologetics. John Calvin and the Scottish Presbyterian Westminster Contrary to presuppositional apologetics ( see PRESUPPOSITIONAL APOLOGETICS ), there is Confession tradition were anchoring theological influences on Warfield. He greatly respected his common ground with unbelievers. “The world of facts is open to all people and all can be predecessor at Princeton, Charles Hodge. James McCosh implanted the Scottish realism of convinced of God’s existence and the truth of Scripture through them by the power of reasoning Thomas Reid (1710–1796) in Warfield’s thinking. He also was heavily influenced by Augustine of a redeemed thinker.” In his 1908 article on “Apologetics”he affirmed that faith is a moral act and, to a lesser degree, by Thomas Aquinas. and a gift of God. However, it is also a matter of conviction become confidence. And all forms of conviction must have a reasonable ground. “It is not faith but reason which investigates the Warfield was preeminently an apologetical theologian. He stressed the need for apologetics nature and validity of this ground. . . . We believe in Christ because it is rational to believe in and a rational faith founded on evidence. him, not even though it be irrational” ( Works , 9:15). Definition of Apologetics. Warfield defined apologetics as “the systematically organized As a Calvinist, Warfield said that mere reasoning cannot make a Christian because of the vindication of Christianity in all its elements and details, against all opposition . . .” ( Works , inability for sinners to come to God under the curse of the fall. The problem is not that faith does 9:5). “What apologetics undertakes to establish is just this Christianity itself—including all its not terminate on evidence, but that a dead soul cannot respond to evidence. However, on the ‘details’ and involving its ‘essence’—in its unexplicated and uncompressed entirety, as the other hand, the Holy Spirit does not bring anyone to salvation apart from evidence. The Spirit absolute religion” (ibid., 9). works to prepare the soul to receive the evidence. Therefore, men and women do not become Christians by apologetics, but apologetics supplies “the systematically organized basis on which Relation of Apologetics and Theology. In his “Idea of Systematic Theology” Warfield spelled the faith of Christian men must rest” (ibid.). out the relation of apologetics to theology: “philosophical apologetics is . . . presupposed in and underlies the structure of scientific theology. . . . Apologetical Theology prepares the way for all 1 2 To be sure, not every Christian can do apologetics, nor are many even aware of the rational M. Noll, “B. B. Warfield,” in Walter Elwell, Handbook of Evangelical Theologians justification of their faith. However, the systematic proof that is implicit in every act of Christian faith is a product of apologetics. It is not necessary for salvation to be conscious of these proofs R. C. Sproul, et al., Classical Apologetics or to explicitly understand them. Nonetheless, such understanding is necessary for the vindication of faith (ibid., 16). B. B. Warfield, An Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament The Various Steps of Apologetics. As a proponent of classical apologetics ( see CLASSICAL ———, “Introduction,” in F. R. Beattie, Apologetics, or the Rational Vindication of Christianity APOLOGETICS ), Warfield believed apologetics could be divided into demonstrations of the being and nature of God ( see GOD, EVIDENCE FOR ), the divine origin and authority of Christianity, and ———, “Revelation” in International Standard Bible Encyclopedia , 1915 ed. the superiority of Christianity over other systems (ibid., 10). He carved up the field by functions ———, Christology and Criticism and which arguments meet which opponents in battle: Philosophical apologetics establishes that God exists as a personal Spirit, as Creator, ———, Counterfeit Miracles Preserver, and Governor. Philosophical apologetics tackles antitheistic theories. ———, Limited Inspiration [ Inerrancy ] Psychological apologetics establishes the religious nature of humankind and the validity of human religious sensitivities. It involves the psychology, philosophy, and phenomena of ———, Revelation and Inspiration religion. It faces naturalist attacks from “comparative religion” or “history of religions” movements. ———, Selected Shorter Writings of Benjamin B. Warfield , 2 vols. ———, Studies in Tertullian and Augustine An unnamed form might be called revelational apologetics , for it reveals the reality of divine governance of history and the actual relationship in which God stands to his world ———, The Gospel of the Incarnation and the ways he makes himself known. ———, The Lord of Glory Historical apologetics presents the case for the divine origin of Christianity as God’s revealed religion. It discusses all the topics that fall under the popular category heading ———, Works of Benjamin B. Warfield , 10 vols. of the “evidences for Christianity.” Wellhausen, Julius. Julius Wellhausen (1844–1918) was a German Bible scholar known as the Biblical apologetics establishes the trustworthiness of the Bible as a God-revealed document for the redemption of sinners (ibid., 13). father of modern biblical criticism ( see BIBLE CRITICISM ). He studied at Göttingen and taught at Göttingen, Greifswald, Halle, Marburg and finally returned to Göttingen as historian, philologist, and master of Hebrew, Aramaic, Syriac, and Arabic. Inspiration of the Bible. Warfield may be best known for his strong defense of the inspiration ( see BIBLE, EVIDENCE FOR ) and inerrancy ( see BIBLE, ALLEGED ERRORS IN ) of the Bible in the Wellhausen’s most significant work, which presented a mature development of the historical originally written texts or “autographs.” Warfield produced two major works: Revelation and critical method, was Introduction to the History of Israel , 1878, 6th ed., 1905. He also wrote Inspiration and Limited Inspiration [ Inerrancy ] and co-authored Inspiration with A. A. Hodge. “Israel” in the 9th ed. of Encyclopedia Britannica , 1878, and Die Komposition des Hexateuchs ( The Composition of the Hexateuch ), 1877. Legacy. Warfield’s views on apologetics have made a lasting impact on the American scene. The works defending an inspired Scripture had a strong influence on the inerrancy movement Wellhausen was influenced by W. F. G. Hegel and Wilhelm Vatke, who applied the Hegelian many years later among evangelicals known as the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy dialectic of historical development to the development of the religion of Israel. From this (see Geisler, Inerrancy ). In general, Warfield is a spiritual ancestor of most classical apologists platform Wellhausen developed the documentary hypothesis. of the late twentieth century, such leaders as John Gerstner, Kenneth Kantzer, Arthur Lindsley, and R. C. Sproul (see Sproul). Documentary Hypothesis. Wellhausen sought to show that the Old Testament as it is possessed by the church is a postexilic product of Judaism with its priestly hierarchy. Religion Sources among the Hebrews has actually developed by a natural evolution, as it had among all other peoples, from fetishism (belief in or worship of objects which are held by superstitious people to A. A. Hodge and B. B. Warfield, Inspiration possess magical power), to polytheism , to henotheism which is the belief in or worship of one 3 4 God without denying the existence of other gods), to ethical monotheism. The last stage was Geographical and historical details of the book display a firsthand acquaintance with sites achieved by the writings of the prophets of the eighth century B.C . culminating in the preaching Moses would have known; its covenantal forms also place it at the period of Moses (Kline, all). of the Deuteronomists. The final development was the institutionalization of this religion in the legislation of the priestly code and the rewriting of Israel’s history in the light of this latest Apparent references within the book to a later period are easily explained. Deuteronomy 34 , religious perspective ( see ARCHAEOLOGY, OLD TESTAMENT ; BIBLE, EVIDENCE FOR ; OLD with its description of Moses’ death, was probably written by his successor Joshua, in TESTAMENT MANUSCRIPTS ; PENTATEUCH, MOSAIC AUTHORSHIP OF ; REDACTION CRITICISM, accordance with the custom of the day. OLD TESTAMENT ; SPINOZA, BENEDICT ; STRAUSS, DAVID ). Moses and the Entire Pentateuch. The evidence that Moses wrote Deuteronomy destroys the The result is the famous J-E-P-D theory of the authorship of the Pentateuch. According to J-E-P-D theory as such. Variations of the theory still deny Moses is the author of all five books. this theory, Moses did not write the Pentateuch (Genesis–Deuteronomy), as both Jewish and Christian scholars have held through the centuries. Rather, it was written by a number of persons Four of the five books (excepting Genesis) claim to be written by Moses (see Exod. 24:4 ; over a long period. These documents are identified as: Levit. 1:1 ; 4:1 ; 5:14 ; Numbers 1:1 ; 33:2 , and as noted above in Deuteronomy. The lack of a direct claim in Genesis is understandable since the events occurred before Moses’ birth. In this 1. the Jehovist or Yahwist ( J ), ninth century B.C .; book, Moses apparently acted something as an editor and compiler himself, basing his work on records preserved from the patriarchs. This is indicated by the frequent formula “this is the 2. the Elohist ( E ), eighth century B.C .; history of” (as in 5:1 ; 10:1 , and 25:19 ). There is considerable evidence that Moses composed what we know as Genesis: 3. the Deuteronomist ( D ), ca. the time of Josiah, 640–609 B.C ., and 1. Moses had access to the family histories which traced their ancestry to Abraham and 4. the Priestly ( P ), ca. fifth century B.C . the beginning. As leader Moses was familiar with God’s promises to give them Palestine ( Gen. 12:1–3 ; 13:15–1 ; 15:18–21 ; 17:8 ; 26:3 ) after delivering them from Egypt ( The Pentateuch was a mosaic put together from different authors who can be identified partly by 46:3–4 ; cf. Exod. 2:24 ). their various uses of Jehovah ( Yahweh ), or Elohim for God or by references to the work of the priests ( P ) or to laws ( D ). 2. Citations of Genesis identify it as part of the “law of Moses” ( Luke 24:44 ; cf. 2 Chron. 25:4 ). These are found in Moses’ own Deuteronomy 1:8 ; 2 Kings 13:23 ; 1 Chronicles 1 One or more “redactors” or editor/compilers brought together all of this evolutionary , and Matt. 19:8 . It is lumped with the other four as books of Moses in Luke 24:27 , 44 . development within the religious history of Israel. Wellhausen assumes that there is a “popular religion” of Israel which must be discovered among the many impositions by later redactors, and 3. From earliest times, Jewish teaching has attributed Genesis to Moses. References are when this religion is discovered it reveals its form at each stage in the evolutionary development. found throughout the Jewish Talmud and in other Jewish writers, such as Philo and Josephus. Evaluation. Wellhausen’s work is critiqued in the article BIBLE CRITICISM , PENTATEUCH, MOSAIC AUTHORSHIP OF , J-E-P-D THEORY , and related entries. In general, Wellhausen’s 4. Exodus through Deuteronomy are incomplete without the background of Genesis. thought has guided the work of “negative” historical-critical efforts to undermine the authority of Together they form a narrative unit. Scripture. The theory is still widely believed, though archaeological and other research has undermined its assumptions. With the possible exception of some parenthetical explanatory material and updating of place names that changed, the language and culture of the entire Pentateuch reflects that of Moses’ day The Collapse of the J-E-P-D Theory. Deuteronomy provides one example of arguments ( see ALBRIGHT, WILLIAM F .). refuting the theories first developed by Wellhausen: Textually, Deuteronomy claims that “these are the words of Moses ( 1:1 ; 4:44 ; 29:1 ). To deny this is to claim the book of the law is a total Other evidence against Wellhausen’s hypothesis. Virtually the whole corpus of fraud. Joshua, Moses’ immediate successor, attributed the book of Deuteronomy to Moses ( Josh. archaeological evidence has tended to prove Wellhausen’s evolutionary theory wrong. Most 1:7 ), as does the rest of the Old Testament ( Judg. 3:4 ; 1 Kings 2:3 ; 2 Kings 14:6 ; Ezra 3:2 ; significant is the earliest findings at Ebla, Syria. The Ebla tablets confirm monotheism extremely Neh. 1:7 ; Ps. 103:7 ; Dan. 9:11 ; Mal. 4:4 ). Deuteronomy is the book of the Law most quoted in early, as opposed to Wellhausen’s supposition that it was a late evolutionary development from the New Testament, with attribution to Moses ( Acts 3:22 ; Rom. 10:19 ; 1 Cor. 9:9 ). Jesus earlier polytheism and henotheism. quoted Deuteronomy 6:13 , 16 in resisting the Devil ( Matt. 4:7 , 10 ), and he also directly attributed it to the hand of Moses ( Mark 7:10 ; Luke 20:28 ). Sources 5 6 O. T. Allis, The Five Books of Moses • Stage three—the Pastoral Epistles and Ignatius, ca. 80s. Jesus is linked with historical figures such as Pilate and is said to have died at the hands of the romans. ———, The Old Testament: Its Claims and Its Critics • Stage four—the Gospels (ca. 90, Mark to ca. 120, John). The Gospels are more or less G. L. Archer, Jr., A Survey of Old Testament Introduction fabricated. They were accepted by the early church uncritically, since they did not conflict with established beliefs (see Habermas, chap. 2). F. Delitzsch, Commentary on Genesis In view of these stages, Wells believes that historical facts about Jesus came late. He N. L. Geisler, and W. E. Nix, General Introduction to the Bible contends that Paul was uninterested in historical details, only a divine Christ. Jesus’ concept of wisdom, plus mystery religions, influenced the early picture. Early Christianity began without R. K. Harrison, “Historical and Literary Criticism of the Old Testament,” in F. Gaberlein, The Expositor’s any contact with a historical Jesus. Thus, nothing can be known about such a man, since there is Bible Commentary , vol. 1 no firsthand information. The Gospels simply guessed about Jesus’ life, accepting what fit with their general views. If Jesus existed, he was probably an obscure peasant. ———, Old Testament Introduction M. Kline, Treaty of the Great King Difficulties with Wells’s Thesis. Problems with this type of argument are covered in articles on the historicity of the New Testament and Jesus. See, in particular, ACTS, HISTORICITY OF ; E. Krentz, The Historical-Critical Method ARCHAEOLOGY, NEW TESTAMENT ; BIBLE, EVIDENCE FOR ; CHRIST, UNIQUENESS OF ; CHRIST OF FAITH VS. JESUS OF HISTORY ; JESUS, NON-CHRISTIAN SOURCES ; JESUS SEMINAR ; NEW R. H. Pfeiffer, Introduction to the Old Testament TESTAMENT, DATING THE ; NEW TESTAMENT, HISTORICITY OF , and SON OF MAN, JESUS AS . J. Wellhausen, Die Komposition des Hexateuchs [The Composition of the Hexateuch] The first problem is that Wells, with most other critics, accepts Paul’s basic writings as in circulation by 60. But this damages his thesis. Even in these books, written while eyewitnesses ———, Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel were still alive, there is ample evidence of historical interest. Paul speaks of Jesus’ virgin birth ( Gal. 4:4 ), sinless life ( 2 Cor. 5:21 ), death on the cross ( 1 Cor. 15:3 ; Gal. 3:13 ), resurrection ( ———, “Israel,” in Encyclopedia Britannica , 9th ed. 1 Cor. 15:4 , 12–20 ), and postresurrection appearances ( 1 Cor. 15:3–8 ). He appealed to the fact that literally hundreds of eyewitnesses could verify his words. Paul also gives historical details J. Wenham, “History and The Old Testament,” Sacra 124 (1967) about Jesus’ immediate followers, the apostles ( 1 Cor. 15:5–8 ; Gal. 1:18–19 ; 2 ). R. D. Wilson, A Scientific Investigation of the Old Testament Another pillar of Wells’s argument crumbles in his dating of the Gospels. Even some critical scholars place Mark at 65 and Matthew and Luke prior to 90. As noted in the article NEW Wells, G. A. Modern scholars have denied that Jesus did and said the things attributed to him by TESTAMENT, HISTORICITY OF , that is about as late as is reasonable, given the evidence. Actual the Gospels ( see BIBLE CRITICISM ; JESUS SEMINAR ). Few, however, have joined with G. A. dates may be quite a bit earlier. Certainly the dating cannot fit the “stage four” scenario. Wells in denying that the man Jesus of Nazareth ever existed. It is, perhaps, the curious nature of Paleographers speak for most legitimate recent scholarship when he concludes that ”every book his ideas that has earned him some interest in theological circles. Wells believes that, if Jesus did of the New Testament was written by a baptized Jew between the forties and the eighties of the exist, he was an obscure person whose story became patterned after mystery religions ( see first century A.D . (very probably sometime between 50 and 75 A.D .” (“Toward a More MITHRAISM ) and Jewish wisdom literature. Conservative View,” 359). Carl Hemer provides powerful evidence that Acts was written between 60–62. Luke was written before Acts (see Acts 1:1 ), placing it no later than 62 ( see In his books, Did Jesus Exist? and The Historical Evidence for Jesus , Wells sees four stages ACTS, HISTORICITY OF ). Rather than being later additions as Wells suggests, the interwoven in the development of the early ideas about Christ: detail and accuracy of the historical data—especially in Luke and Acts strongly present an early date. • Stage one—Paul’s Epistles, written by 60. This “Jesus” was viewed as a supernatural being who spent a brief but obscure time on earth, perhaps centuries earlier ( Did Jesus Finally, the John Rylands papyri fragment ( see NEW TESTAMENT MANUSCRIPTS ) is good Exist? chap. 5). evidence that John was written before the end of the first century. The possibility of New Testament fragments from the mid-first-century at Qumran, if substantiated, will definitively put • Stage two—non-Pauline canonical Epistles, completed in the 70s. Jesus is now said to to rest any talk of late Gospels. have lived on earth recently. 7 8 Christianity and Mystery Religions. Contrary to Wells, accounts of Christ’s life was not Wells, H. G. based on the mystery religions ( see MITHRAISM ). According to a contemporary account by Paul ( 1 Corinthians 15 ), the Gospels were based on eyewitness testimony. In view of this, Wolfhart Life and Works. Herbert George Wells (1866–1946) was a scientific humanist who affirmed Pannenberg concludes, “Under such circumstances it is an idle venture to make parallels in the a new religious faith, a faith in man. He was an admirerer of Auguste Comte and Herbert history of religions responsible for the emergence of the primitive Christian message about Spencer. Wells was an English journalist, secondary-level science teacher, and co-author with Jesus’ resurrection” (Pannenberg, 91). Julian Huxley of a popularized work, the Science of Life . Christianity was monotheistic, and the mystery religions by nature were polytheistic ( see He “grew up in Victorian England; but he reacted violently, even as a child, against the POLYTHEISM ). The gods of the mystery religions were not incarnated as human beings (see John evangelical faith of his mother” Indeed, “He especially despised the doctrine of the Trinity ” 1:1 , 14 ). The stories of gods coming back from the dead are not resurrections in the Christian (Glover, 121). Nonetheless, Wells’ writings reflect many Christian truths, including that of sense, but rather examples of reincarnation ( see MITHRAISM ). original sin seen in his belief in the “persistent wickedness” of human beings. And the final, fatal flaw is that these stories postdate the time of Christ and the Gospels ( see H. G. Wells wrote a series of science romances and other works including The Time Machine NEW TESTAMENT, DATING OF ). (1895), The Food of the Gods (1904), First and Last Things (1908), God The Invisible King (1917), The Secret Places of the Heart (1922), The Fate of Man (1939), You Can’t Be Too Historical Methodology. Wells’s contention that the Gospels were guesswork or fabrications Careful (1941), New World Order (194?), and Mind at the End of Its Tether (194?). about Jesus is without foundation. It is based on the disproven assumption that they were late books, and it neglects the overlap in Paul’s writings and the presence of eyewitnesses who could Wells’ Views. There are many words that describe the beliefs of Wells: evolutionism, set the record straight. Also, the Gospels and Paul present the same basic picture of Jesus. antipessimism, mysticism , dualism , finite godism, agnosticism and even fideism were all embraced by Wells. What is consistent throughout his work is humanistic evolutionism ( see If the same criteria are applied to the life of Christ as are generally used to evaluate ancient HUMANISM, SECULAR ). writings, the historicity of Jesus must be accepted. Evaluated by these standards, critical historian Michael Grant noted, “we can no more reject Jesus’ existence than we can reject the existence of Reacting to his early pessimism, Wells wrote: “I dismiss the idea that life is chaotic because a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned” (Grant, 199– it leaves my life ineffectual, and I cannot contemplate an ineffectual life patiently.” Further, “I 200). assert . . . that I am important in a scheme, that we are all important in a scheme. . . . What the scheme as a whole is I do not know; with my limited mind I cannot know. There I become a Sources Mystic.” He adds, “And this unfounded and arbitrary declaration of the ultimate righteousness and significance of things I call the Act of Faith. It is my fundamental religious confession. It is a W. F. Albright, “William Albright: Toward a More Conservative View,” in Christianity Today (18 voluntary and deliberate determination to be lieve, it is a choice made” ( First and Last Things, January, 1963) 66–67). M. Grant, Jesus: An Historian’s Review of the Gospels In 1917, he professed to have found salvation from the purposelessness of life described in a book entitled God the Invisible King. William Archer charged that here Wells saw himself as the G. Habermas, The Historical Jesus apostle of a new religious faith (Archer, 32). R. Nash, Christianity and the Hellenistic World God was finite and had come into existence in time but outside space. God was the personal Captain of Mankind who grows as mankind grows. Nonetheless, God was not the collective W. Pannenberg, Jesus—God and Man Mind of mankind but a being with a character of his own. J. A. T. Robinson, Redating the New Testament God’s Enemy was Nature or, more specifically, Death. Thus God’s aim was to overcome death. God stands over the Veiled Being or Life Force which is “Nature red in tooth and claw.” G. A. Wells, Did Jesus Exist? ———, The Historical Evidence for Jesus In the end Wells turned pessimistic ( Mind at the End of Its Tether ). He despairs that man will be able to adapt and fears he will go the way of the dinosaur. Nevertheless, he believes E. Yamauchi, “Easter—Myth, Hallucination, or History?” Christianity Today (29 March, 1974; 15 April, evolution will go on through some other organism. 1974) 9 10 Evaluation. For an evaluation of Wells’ views, see the articles mentioned above under have an apparent interest in propagating falsehood; and, thirdly, they palpably contradict each “Wells’ Views.” other in the most important points” (266). Whateley challenges the free thinker to weigh all the evidence, “and if he then finds it amounts to anything more than a probability,” Whateley said he Sources would congratulate him for his easy faith (271). W. Archer, God the Invisible King Whateley insists that the story becomes even more doubtful when it partakes of the extraordinary. Tracing the incredible nature of Napoleon’s military exploits, Whateley asked W. B. Glover, “Religious Orientations of H. G. Wells . . .,” Harvard Theological Review 65 (1972) whether anyone would believe this, yet not believe in miracles. For it seemed to him that Napoleon had violated the laws of nature (274). Hence, every skeptic who follows his own H. G. Wells, First and Last Things principles should reject such stories about Napoleon as highly improbable. ——— God the Invisible King In addressing the question of motive, Whateley pointed out that, while the story about Napoleon may be true, a more ingenious one could not have been fabricated for the amusement ———, Mind at the End of Its Tether of the British people. He speculates, as well, on how the name Napoleon Bonaparte could have mistakenly arisen, as had others in history. He called free thinkers to listen to no testimony that Whateley, Richard. Richard Whateley (1786–1863) was an English logician and theologian and runs contrary to their experience but to follow their principles consistently. “If, after all that has archbishop of Dublin (1831–1863). His book Logic (1826) set forth the essence of his been said, they cannot bring themselves to doubt the existence of Napoleon Bonaparte, they must understanding of the use of reason. He left behind his own memoir, which was published at least acknowledge that they do not apply to that question the same plan of reasoning which posthumously by his daughter, Life and Correspondence . . . (1866). Whateley also edited they have made use of in others” (290). William Paley ’s Evidences and Moral Philosophy . But his most enduring legacy from an apologetics standpoint is Historic Doubts Relative to Napoleon Bonaparte (1819). In this short Whether any skeptics announced their doubt about Napoleon, a few of the more open minded work he satirized skepticism by reducing to the absurd the logic used to deny the authenticity of should have been encouraged to check their biases regarding biblical accounts of miracles in the Bible. general, and the New Testament’s record of Jesus in particular. Using the still-living historical figure Napoleon I (1769–1821) as an example, Whateley Sources applied David Hume ’s (1711–1776) principles of skepticism. He said it was no wonder the public was still occupied with recounting the exploits of Napoleon, given their extraordinary D. Hume, An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding , book 10 character. But no one seemed to be asking the crucial question of whether Napoleon even existed. Whateley noted that the unquestioned is not necessary unquestionable. People admit R. Whateley, Historic Doubts Relative to Napoleon Bonaparte , in H. Morley, ed., Famous Pamphlets hastily what they are accustomed to take for granted. Hume had pointed out the readiness with which people believe on slight evidence the stories that please their imagination. Whitehead, Alfred North. Alfred North Whitehead (1861–1947) is the father of the contemporary worldview known as panentheism (not to be confused with pantheism), or Process Upon examining the evidence, Whateley concludes that, aside from the rare first-hand Theology. He was born on the Isle of Thanet, the son of an Anglican minister. He attended witness, the newspaper had become the authority for truth. But using Hume’s three principles of Sherborne public school in Dorset, learning classics, history, and mathematics. He attended credibility ( see NEW TESTAMENT, HISTORICITY OF ), the authority of the newspaper fails on all Trinity College, Cambridge, on a mathematics scholarship (1880–84) and was awarded a points. Hume asked of witnesses: fellowship at Trinity in 1884. 1. whether they have the means of gaining correct information. The first period of writing (1898–1910) was focused on the philosophy of mathematics. He produced A Treatise on Universal Algebra (1898) and Principia Mathematica (with Bertrand 2. whether they are interested in concealing truth or propagating falsehood. Russell, 1910–13). 3. whether they agree in their testimony. The second period of writing (1910–24) concentrated on the philosophy of science. While teaching at the University of London (1910–14) he wrote Introduction to Mathematics (1911). “It appears then that those on whose testimony the existence and actions of Bonaparte are generally believed, fail in all the most essential points on which the credibility of witnesses Later, at Imperial College of Science and Technology (1914–24) he produced “Space, Time, depends; first, we have no assurance that they have access to correct information; second, they and Relativity” (1915), The Organization of Thought (1917), An Enquiry Concerning the 11 12 Principles of Natural Knowledge (1919), The Concept of Nature (1920), and The Principle of Actual entities are real occasions, events, or drops of experience. As in Plato’s Sophist , they are Relativity (1922). becoming but never really finish the journey. With each passing moment of process, old dies and new is born. They pass from subjectivity to objectivity (immortality). This they do by final A third period of writing (1924–47) stressed the philosophy of history and reality as well as causality—namely, by their subjective aim. Once they are objectified, then they can act by cosmology and metaphysics. The transitional period (1925–27) brought forth Science and the efficient causality on others from past to present. Modern World (1925), Religion in the Making (1926), and Symbolism, Its Meaning and Effect (1927). His mature works in this field came from 1927 to 1947 and produced the epic Process So how does one move along this pole-to-pole progression, objectifying and becoming? It is and Reality (1929), Adventures of Ideas (1933), Modes of Thought (1938), and Essays in Science a mental process of seizing and incorporating into self an apprehension of the surrounding world. and Philosophy (1947). Actually it goes beyond “apprehending” or “comprehending” knowledge to uniting with the world being apprehended, so Whitehead dusts off the seldom-used term prehension . Religion in the Making. Whitehead’s understanding of religion is a landmark in modern thought. His understanding of dogma or propositional religious statements, if valid, would negate Prehension is a process of feeling, so it goes beyond objective handling of objective realities. the orthodox Christian belief in an inspired and infallible Scripture ( see BIBLE, EVIDENCE FOR ). It absorbs what is prehended into the unity and satisfaction of the actual entity that is prehending. Whitehead’s complex thought is sometimes called process theology , since its bottom-line reality There are two kinds of prehension, negative or exclusive and positive or inclusive. There are is that all things are in process of becoming, including God. three factors of prehension: Definition of Religion. Religion is defined as “A system of general truths which have the 1. the occasion of experience (the subject, actual entity); effect of transforming character when they are sincerely held and vividly apprehended.” Religion emerged in ritual —habitual performances of acts irrelevant to physical preservation. It then 2. the data prehended (the object prehended); manifested itself in emotion —definite types of expressing ones religious feelings, following ritual. Belief ( myth ) followed, giving definite explanations for the ritual. Finally came 3. the subjective form (how the datum is prehended). rationalization , the organization and clarification of beliefs and application to conduct. As rituals encouraged emotions (cf. holy-day and holiday), so myths begot thought. All actual entities are bipolar by nature. The conceptual pole (potential aspect) is simple and can be negatively prehended in total. What is conceptual or potential is not now. The physical Religion and Dogma. Religious experiences relate to dogma in that dogmas are attempts at pole (actual aspect) is complex and can be prehended partly negatively and partly positively. It is precise formulations of religions experience. Rational religions have expressed their experience some things; it is not other things. The ontological principle is that the only real causes of in three main concepts, first, the value of the individual, second, the value of diverse individuals anything come from the physical pole. Only actual entities become real causes, final facts. for each other, and third, the value of the objective world for the existence of a community of individuals. “Religion is world-loyalty,” though it begins with consciousness of value within the View of God. The God Options. Whitehead’s view of God is bipolar. His actual pole is the individual. universe, the cosmos. This pole is in constant change as God prehends more experiences or entities. God’s potential pole is beyond the actual world. It is the infinite world of eternal and According to Whitehead, rational religion is an attempt to find a permanent, intelligible unchanging potential. interpretation of experience. Buddhism and Christianity differ in that the latter is metaphysics seeking a religion, whereas the latter is religion seeking a metaphysics. In Buddhism ( see ZEN It may be helpful to see how Whitehead contrasted his view of God to other conceptions: BUDDHISM ), evil is necessary, but in Christianity it is only contingent. While Buddhists seek relief from the world, Christians seek to change the world. Buddha gave doctrine to enlighten, 1. The Eastern Asiatic concept of an impersonal order to which the world conforms. This but Christ gave his life to save. Buddhism begins from general principles, but Christianity begins order is the self-ordering of the world; it is not the world obeying an imposed rule. with facts and generalizes on them. 2. The Semitic concept of a definite personal. individual entity, whose existence is the one Metaphysics . According to Whitehead, both process and permanence interplay as aspects of ultimate metaphysical fact. God is absolute and underived. This God decreed and ordered reality. Permanence is a potential element of reality. Temporal (time) permanence is found in the derivative existence we call the actual world. eternal objects. Nontemporal permanence is found in God (or at least in God’s primordial nature, as noted below). 3. The pantheistic concept has connections to the Semitic concept, except that the actual world is a phase within the complete fact of the being of God. The complete fact is the A bit of reality is the actual element or entity. Being is the potential for becoming. This is the ultimate individual entity of God. The actual world, conceived apart from God, is unreal. principle of relativity . How a thing becomes is what a thing is. This is the principle of progress . Its only reality is God’s reality. The actual world is real only to the extent that it is a 13 14 partial description of what God is. But in itself it is merely a certain mutuality of According to Whitehead, God has both a primordial nature and a consequent nature . The “appearance.” This appearance is a phase of the being of God. This is the extreme latter is the being which is being continually enriched by God prehends. Whitehead also calls it doctrine of monism as held by Parmenides and Shankara ( see HINDUISM, VEDANTA ) in God’s superject nature . India ( Religion in the Making , 66, 67). The primordial nature of God was to be the orderer of eternal objects. Eternal objects are Whitehead rejects these views. Christianity is a form of the “Semitic” view, though Christian pure potentials which, like Gottfried Leibniz ’s monads, cannot relate themselves. The doctrine has attempted to add some immanence to the utterly transcendent simple Semitic Being. ontological princi ple demands that there be an actual entity behind them, since only actual It is the radical transcendence (otherness) of the Semitic God to which Whitehead objects. He entities are real causes. also rejects the all-sufficiency of this conception of God,. “There is no entity, not even God, ‘which requires nothing but itself in order to exist’ ” (ibid., 71). God also is the orderer of actual entities. It is necessary for God to have a consequent nature. All actual entities are bipolar. The physical pole is needed to realize the vision of the conceptual The Existence and Nature of God. Following Immanuel Kant, Whitehead rejects the pole. Also, the primordial nature relates only to eternal objects. And the principle of relativity ontological argument as invalid. The cosmological argument can get us only so far as to demands that something relate to actual entities. Without God the actual world would fall into postulate a God immanent in the world. Whitehead opts for an “aesthetic argument” from the chaos. order of the world. God is posited to account for the creative order in world process. The superject nature of God is merely the consequent nature as enriched by God’s That is, God is dependent on the world, and the world is dependent on God. Apart from God, prehensions and as available for prehension by other actual entities—a never-ending process. there would be no actual world. Apart from the dynamic creativity of the actual world, there Evil is incompatibility. What is evil does not fit into a given order of the world process. would be “no rational explanation of the ideal vision which constitutes God.” Creativity is the principle of conjunction and continuity that fills in the gaps between the atoms, that grounds the world process, that makes manyness into oneness. It is the “substance” of which In his actual pole, God is finite and limited. “To be an actual thing is to be limited.” God all actual entities (even God) are the “accidents.” cannot be infinite in his actual pole or he would be all things that actually are—evil as well as good (ibid., 144). View of the World. God and the world are not actually different. God is the order (and value) in the actual world. The world is God’s consequent nature. It is the sum total of all actual entities Note that this argument is interacting primarily with, and recasting the pantheistic worldview. (events) as ordered by God. But the world is in process. It is constantly changing. Hence, God in Pantheism is denied, for its being is too immanent, yet it is the alternative that Whitehead’s his consequent nature is constantly in flux. thought takes most seriously. To reduce God to an impersonal Force, as the Asiatic concept does, is to demean God’s religious significance. God is personal, intimately related to the world. But Creation. The universe is eternal. God does not create eternal objects. He is dependent on likewise rejected is a transcendent God who is independent and self-existent. God is either finite, them as they are on him. Thus, God “is not before all creation, but with all creation” (ibid., 392, or he is the universe, including its evil ( see EVIL, PROBLEM OF ). God is not beyond the world 521). He does not bring the universe into existence; he directs its progress. nor is he identical with it. God is in the world. “God is that function in the world by reason of which our purposes are directed to ends which in our own consciousness are impartial as to our As another process theologian put it, creation from nothing is too coercive. The temptation is own interests. Further, God is the actual realization (in the world) of the ideal world. ‘The great to interpret God’s role by means of coercive power. “If the entire created order is kingdom of heaven is God’ ” (ibid., 148, 151). dependent for its existence upon his will, then it must be subject to his full control. . . . Insofar as God controls the world, he is responsible for evil: directly in terms of the natural order, and There is a God in the world, because “The order of the world is no accident. There is nothing indirectly in the case of man” (Ford, 201). actual which could be actual without some measure of order. . . . this creativity and these forms are together impotent to achieve actuality apart from the completed ideal harmony, which is God is more of a cosmic persuader who lures the actual out of potential by final causality the God” (ibid., 115). God functions as the ground for creativity necessary for the attainment of way one is drawn by an object of their love. value in the world. “God, as conditioning the creativity with his harmony of apprehension, issues into the mental creature as moral judgment according to a perfection of ideals.” Thus, “the In one sense the origin or “creation” of the universe is ex materia (out of preexisting matter). purpose of God in the attainment of value is in a sense a creative purpose. Apart from God, the But the eternal “stuff” is not material but the realm of eternal forms or potentials which are there remaining formative elements would fail in their functions” (ibid., 110, 114). available for God to order and to urge into the world process as various aspects of actual entities. But since the realm of eternal objects is God’s primordial nature, the movement of creation is also ex deo , that is, out of God’s potential pole into his actual pole (the world). Reality moves 15 16 from the unconscious to the conscious, from potential to actual, from abstract to concrete, from What a finite God cannot persuade to fit into the overall unity of the actual world is evil. Evil forms to facts. is incompatibility. It is incongruence. Evil is like the left-over pieces of glass that did not fit into the stain glass window. Only this “picture” or order changes every split second. What does not fit What prompts this movement? What actualizes it? The answer is creativity . “ ‘Creativity’ is one moment may fit later. Evil, then, must be conceived of as relative. the principle of novelty .” Creativity introduces novelty into the actual world. “The ‘creative advance’ is the application of this ultimate principle of creativity to each novel situation which it Human Beings. The human is a personal being with a free will. Each person has “subjective originates.” Even God is grounded in creativity. “Every actual entity, including God, is a creature aims,” for which ends are purposed and final causality is achieved. God gives overall aim—the transcended by the creativity which it qualifies.” Hence, “all actual entities share with God this initial direction, but where the creature goes from there is his or her own responsibility (Ford, character of self-causation” ( Process and Reality , 31, 32, 135, 339). 202–3). There is a self-caused movement in God from his potential pole to his actual pole. God is a In the mind-body relationship described by Whitehead, the living body is a coordination of self-caused ‘being’ who is constantly becoming. Thus the process of creation is an eternal actual occasions. Each person (God included) is a society of actual entities that constantly ongoing process of God’s self-realization. change. There is no changeless, enduring “I.” An individual’s unity is not found in any unchanging essence or being. It is self-caused becoming. Whitehead wrote: The World. The world is pluralistic ( see PLURALISM ). As a whole it is God’s “body.” It is made up of many “actual entities,” what Whitehead calls “final facts,” “drops of experience,” or I find myself as essentially a unity of emotions, enjoyments, hopes, fears, regrets, “actual occasions” ( Primordial Nature of God , 95). The world is an atomistic series of events ( valuations of alternatives, decisions—all of them subjective reactions to the environment see ATOMISM ). as active in my nature. My unity—which is Descartes’ “I am”— is my process of shaping this welter of material into a consistent pattern of feelings. I shape the activities of the A process metaphysics of the world abandons the concept of actual entities that are the environment into a new creation, which is myself at this moment; and yet, as being unchanging subjects of change. All things are rather constantly perishing and being reborn as myself, it is a continuation of the antecedent world. [ Modes of Thought , 228] different things. The idea that “no one crosses the same river twice” is extended to the person doing the crossing, as well as the water flowing in the stream. No thinker thinks twice. No A person’s identity is produced moment by moment within the community of actual events. As subject experiences twice. There are no unchanging beings (ibid., 43, 122). There is no concrete in the broader world, there is no continuity in becoming; there is only this becoming in being, all is becoming. “It belongs to the nature of every ‘being’ that it is a potential for every continuity ( Religion in the Making , 112). becoming. There is a becoming of continuity, but no continuity of becoming” (ibid., 53, 71). Personal immortality was not an essential part of Whitehead’s view. He saw no scientific Despite the atomic distinctness and continual change in the universe, there is order. This evidence for it, but neither did he oppose it. He simply noted that at present it is generally held order is given by God. In his primordial nature God gives order to all eternal objects (forms) and that a purely spiritual being is necessarily immortal. His doctrine is entirely neutral on the the “consequent nature” of “God is the physical prehension by God of the actualities of the question of immortality, or on the existence of purely spiritual beings other than God (ibid., 107– evolving universe” (ibid., 134). 8). Evil. God’s self-realization is never perfect, nor is it totally incomplete. The actual world is Ethics and Values. In this ever-changing kaleidoscope, there is no absolute evil, so there are neither purely orderly, nor purely chaotic. The immanence of an ordering God makes pure chaos no absolute values ( see MORALITY, ABSOLUTE NATURE OF ). Value is changing and subjective. impossible (ibid., 169). God is doing all he can to achieve the most possible out of every moment “There are many species of subjective forms, such as emotions, valuations, purposes, adversions, in world history. “The image under which this operative growth of God’s nature is best aversions, consciousness, etc.” ( Process and Reality , 35). God is the measure of all value, but conceived, is that of a tender care that nothing be lost” (ibid., 525). Evil can be defined as God is no more stable than is anything else. Nothing is not changing. whatever is incompatible with these divine efforts at any given moment. Since God does not force the world, but only persuades it, he cannot destroy evil. He must simply work with it and On the other hand, value is specific and concrete. God wants to attain value, and the search is do the best he can to overcome it ( see FINITE GODISM ; KUSHNER, HAROLD ). “[The theory of] creative. “The actual world is the outcome of the aesthetic order [of value], and the aesthetic is divine persuasion responds to the problem of evil radically, simply denying that God exercises derived from the immanence of God” ( Religion in the Making , 97, 100–1). The problem with full control over the world. Plato sought to express this by saying that God does the best job he the theistic Christian ethic is that it looks to an end of the world—definite goals and an absolute can in trying to persuade a recalcitrant matter to receive the impress of the divine forms” (Ford, way to go. Christians give free rein “to their absolute ethical intuitions respecting ideal 202). possibilities without a thought of the preservation of society” ( Adventures of Ideas , 16). 17 18 For Whitehead, good and evil “solely concern inter-relations within the real world. The real stood at the end of the middle ages, and contributed to the rise of the modern age. Whereas world is good when it is beautiful” (ibid., 269). Goodness always comes in comparative degrees, skepticism flowered in David Hume (1711–1776), its roots were in William of Ockham. just as things are more or less beautiful. But nothing is either most beautiful or most perfect. “Morality consists in the aim at the ideal. . . . Thus stagnation is the deadly foe of morality” Ockham’s thought had a significant influence on the radical empiricism and skepticism of (ibid., 269–70). There is at best, for both God and human beings, only a relative achievement of Hume, the ethical situationalism of Joseph Fletcher ( see MORALITY, ABSOLUTE NATURE OF ), more good. the idealism of George Berkeley (1685–1753), the antitransubstantiation of Martin Luther (1483–1546), as well as ethical voluntarism, nominalism, and the univocity of religious language History and Destiny. There is an ongoing evolutionary ( see EVOLUTION, COSMIC ; ( see ANALOGY, PRINCIPLE OF ). EVOLUTION, BIOLOGICAL ) process. God is achieving more and more value. It is being stored in his consequent nature, which, as enriched, is called God’s “superject nature.” However, “neither Epistemological Skepticism. His skepticism was manifest on three levels: epistemological, God, nor the world, reaches static completion” (ibid., 135, 529). Evil is recalcitrant, and no final methodological, and apologetic. In his epistemology he was a nominalist and a skeptical victory over it is possible. Hence, Whitehead concludes, “In our cosmological construction we empiricist. are, therefore left with the final opposites, joy and sorrow, good and evil, disjunction and conjunction—that is to say, the many in one—flux and permanence, greatness and triviality, Ockham distrusted the senses. He stressed intuition. He held that essences or universals were freedom and necessity, God and the World” (ibid., 518). mental abstractions that were based in real things ( see REALISM ). But Ockham believed that an essence was merely a mental construct with no root in reality. Such things as human nature were Since God is neither omniscient nor omnipotent, even God does not know how the world not real. Only individual humans exist. process will eventuate ( see GOD, NATURE OF ). For “during that process God, as it were, has to wait with bated breath until the decision is made, not simply to find out what the decision was, Nominalism has serious implications when applied to the fall of humanity and its but perhaps even to have the situation clarified by virtue of the decision of that concrete redemption. How can a sinful being inherit a single nature if there is no such thing as a nature? occasion” (Loomer, 365). How can Christ assume human nature and die for all people, unless there is a human nature? How can one hold an orthodox belief in the Trinity, which affirms that God is three persons in Evaluation. The complexity and vastness of Whitehead’s thought makes it difficult to offer a one essence if there are no essences? comprehensive evaluation of his ideas in a short space. Much of this is evaluated elsewhere. His underlying epistemology of relative truth and morality is covered in TRUTH, ABSOLUTE NATURE Ockham argued that since God was omnipotent that he could do anything. He could create OF ; MORALITY, NATURE OF ). On the process view of God and reality, see PANENTHEISM . The the idea of a tree in our mind, even without the presence of a tree ( see GOD, NATURE OF ). This, process concept of evil is exposed in EVIL, PROBLEM OF . of course, undercut trust in the process of “knowing” something. One could “know” something to be true that did not really exist. Could not God create the idea of a world in our minds when Sources there was no world? To apply Ockham to a later skeptic, could not the “demon” conceived by René Descartes (1596–1650) deceive us into believing a nonexistent world existed? Ford, L. “Biblical Recital and Process Philosophy” in Interpretation Even without malevolent deception, why could not a benevolent God create impressions he Geisler, N. L. “Process Theology,” in S. Gundry et al., eds., Tensions in Contemporary Theology desired without there being any external object corresponding to them? ———, et al., Worlds Apart: A Handbook of World Views , chap. 4 Methodological Skepticism. Ockham also posited the principle of economy of causes, known as Ockham’s razor . This tool also proved useful to later skeptics, with its principle of simplicity D. F. Lindsey, “An Evangelical Overview of Process Theology,” Sacra 134 (January–March 1977) or economy of causes. Although Ockham’s statement was “Do not multiply causes without necessity,” this has been popularized (corrupted) into the idea, “The simplest cause is the best B. Loomer, “A Response to David Griffin,” Encounter 36:4 (Autumn 1975) explanation,” or “The fewer the truer.” This leads to “The fewest the truest.” When this is combined with the principle of omnipotence, the consequences can be devastating. For example, A. N. Whitehead, Process and Reality God could create the impression there is a physical world when there is none. This simpler explanation would, then, be the true one. This, indeed, is the conclusion at which Bishop ———, Religion in the Making Berkeley later arrived. William of Ockham. Modern skepticism ( see AGNOSTICISM ) did not begin with David Hume . Apologetic Skepticism. Ockham was not a skeptic about the existence of God. He was a It began in the late Middle Ages with William of Ockham (1285–1349). Ockham was the theist. However, his skepticism undermined the apologetic defense of theism. His objections to younger contemporary of Duns Scotus (1266–1308) and Thomas Aquinas (1224–1274). He 19 20