Dooyeweerd, Vollenhoven, and the Possibility of Interaction Between Reformational Philosophy and Theology II

In the first post in this series I focused on the differences between Dooyeweerd and Vollenhoven’s philosophies in terms of pedagogy. In this post I’m going to fulfill the promise of the series title and discuss what I see as the proper relationship between (Christian) philosophy and theology.

Prolegomena

Following Vollenhoven’s statement on the fourth page of his Isagoge Philosophiae, we argue that philosophy is both deed and result. Wisdom is something which must be striven after and knowledge/understanding is the end result of that striving. Inasmuch as philosophy is, at bottom, a striving after wisdom, and, inasmuch as Jesus is God’s Wisdom (c.f. Colossians 2:3 – one might say that the fullness of God’s wisdom dwelt within Him, and thus now dwells in us) striving after wisdom is striving after God, desiring to conform ourselves to Christ’s likeness. Thus, as a Christian philosopher, I am constantly striving for wisdom which is not primarily existential or ideal – it does not come from experience necessarily nor is it a product of logic – wisdom is found outside of myself.

Non-Christian philosophy also often strives for wisdom outside of the self, however, the ground-motive or ontological engine (I will discuss this in a future blog post) of their philosophy is not the revelation of God in Christ. Therefore the wisdom they seek is not God’s wisdom. Any philosophy which does not take the revelation of God in the incarnate Christ as its arche and animating principle cannot count as Christian philosophy.

Ontology is paramount to the philosophical enterprise. That is why it is so vital that philosophers get their ontology clear in their hearts and minds. Whether one’s philosophy is Christian or not, if it be solely an internal intellectual enterprise, it is doomed from the outset, for philosophy properly so-called must strive towards wisdom which is not something intrinsic to the philosopher herself. This means that the grounding for one’s philosophy must come from somewhere outside of the self.

Now I’m going to make a statement that most Dooyeweerdian philosophers may cringe at. Ground-Motives point outwards. Dooyeweerd argued that ground-motive is an apt description of the animating impetus of one’s philosophy and this is true. However, if one is able to do an immanent critique of a philosopher’s thought and discern their ground-motive, then it seems plausible that from this one should be able to discern the direction toward which one’s philosophy points. If this is the case, then the central principle of one’s philosophy determines all avenues that philosophy may take.

Relation Between Philosophy and Theology

Study of and meditation on the Biblical witness is the primary way that the revelation of the God of Christianity comes, although information regarding God’s plan may come through prayer and extra-Biblical sources, if what is revealed lines up with Scripture (based on one’s hermeneutic) and is counted as such by the community of believers.

Theology strictly defined means “words about God.” Thus, it is speech/thought related to God. This could mean that philosophy as a discipline is always caught up in theology, inasmuch as it counts God as part of its ontology. However, theology as as discipline is distinct from philosophy more generally because philosophy is not necessarily aimed at God directly. Yet, as I argued above, striving after wisdom is always already striving after Christ so that philosophy is always aimed towards God obliquely.

Thus, I argue that worries about strict divisions between the disciplines of theology and philosophy are frivolous and a waste of time. What matters most is that Christian theologians and philosophers work together – the disciplines ought to be informing each other and, as they inform each other, they ought to be in(en)forming and impacting the larger world. If it is true that the ground-motive of Christian philosophy (and theology) ought to be the revelation of God in Christ, then both disciplines are always already proclamation!!

If this is taken seriously, then the ultimate task of Christian philosophy and theology within their spheres is to do and proclaim the Gospel, to set captives free, and to break the yoke of bondage in which all of Creation is entwined.

 

 

 

Advertisements

5 thoughts on “Dooyeweerd, Vollenhoven, and the Possibility of Interaction Between Reformational Philosophy and Theology II

  1. Interesting blog! How do you seek God’s wisdom outside of self if Christ’s spirit dwells within us? Are you referencing the bible as an example? What would other examples be?

    Like

    • I would suggest that, though Christ dwells within every born-again Christian, the Spirit is not equivalent to their spirit. Thus, I do not equal the Holy Spirit that dwells within me – I and the Spirit remain two different entities. Therefore it is legitimate to say that a Christian philosophy always seeks wisdom from outside the individual person. The Bible could be an example of this, but Creation (excepting the individual doing the philosophizing/theorizing) is also a locus of wisdom inasmuch as we can learn about and from it.

      Like

      • I see your point regarding the source is wisdom. A born again Christian and a baptized Christian both have the Spirit whether they classify themselves as born again or not? Or do you receive the Spirit through baptism only? Do you believe you must be born again to have the Spirit of Christ? I believe you have the Spirit of Christ within you once baptized but must acknowledge His presence in the case of infant baptism. At that time, I would say a baptized believer is born again.

        Like

      • This is kind of a difficult question for me to answer, because on one hand, you’re obviously baptised in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit so from that perspective anyone who is baptised receives the Holy Spirit. On the other hand, there are no recordings in the Bible of anyone baptizing infants – I’m not saying that baptising infants doesn’t “work”, it’s just that in the Bible the only examples of baptism occur after an individual has already accepted Jesus Christ as Lord over their life.

        Another issue from your question is this business of Charismatic Christians talking about the “Baptism of the Holy Spirit” as a second event after your initial baptism. It’s a very unfortunate turn of phrase because this obviously implies that if you were baptised before or accepted Christ (and were thus born again) you’ve somehow got an “incomplete” on your baptism report card! In questioning a lot of Charismatic Christians on this question I’ve found that they don’t really mean this (although as I’ve said, it’s certainly implied) – the Baptism of the Holy Spirit refers to receiving the gift of speaking in tongues re: Acts 1 and elsewhere in the New Testament. They don’t believe that non-Charismatic Christians don’t have the fullness of the triune God living on the inside of them, they believe that non-Charismatics however are not living in the fullness of all that God has provided for them at baptism. I’d say that their ideal would be that someone would be “baptised in the Spirit” (speak in tongues) simultaneous with accepting Christ as their Lord/baptism. I’ve seen this happen on occasion, although I’d say it’s far from common.

        Being born again connotes making a conscious decision to make Christ Lord over one’s life. Thus, any time a Lutheran or Catholic or Anglican confesses the Apostles or Nicene Creeds they’re proclaiming Christ’s Lordship over their lives and are thus born again. Some people emphasize having a “born again experience” but I don’t believe you have to have an “experience” to be or prove that you’re born again.

        Like

      • Thanks Dan. Great explanation on a complex topic. You broke it down well & I concur with your thoughts.

        Look forward to your next blog!

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s