A Much, Much Needed Rebuttal of Bill Craig on Theology and Philosophy

I don’t know why it took me about five years to get around reading Oliphint’s works. But I stumbled upon four of the best pages I’ve ever read on the subject of the relationship between theology and philosophy, and it pleases me to have one much more qualified and wise deliver timely and incredibly important criticism:

Given the dual metaphysical construct of Eimi/eikon, the “I AM”/image, therefore, we should begin to see that, just as the very being of creation was given by and is dependent upon God the Creator, so is our knowledge of God and of creation dependent upon him. This dependence requires not just an acknowledgment so that we can tip our philosophical hat to God and then go our merry way in pursuit of the truth (which is what much of theistic philosophy appears to do). It invites us, instead, to see the entire knowledge situation as dependent, first of all, on what God has said and done.

The implications of this for philosophy and other disciplines are legion. One of the primary implications is that philosophy’s boundaries and parameters should be set by the truth of God’s revelation first of all, and thus should be dependent on the theological conclusions gleaned from that revelation. In this way, philosophy should be dependent on theology.

This may sound strange, particularly to philosophic ears. It may sound as though theologians are trying to usurp the domain of philosophy. Consider, however, that philosophy has, almost without argument, trespassed the grounds of theological territory, and often without so much as a hint of impropriety. Just to use one example, in a recent book Time and Eternity, [Bill Craig] states:

The present book is written for Christians who want to grapple seriously with the concept of God’s eternity. Unlike some other writers on the attributes of God, I am convinced that the best tool we have for really understanding what is meant by the affirmation that God is eternal is not poetry or piety, but analytic philosophy…unfortunately, today’s theologians generally have next to no training in philosophy and science and so are ill-equipped to address in a substantive way the complex issues raised by God’s eternity.

This is an interesting statement indeed. Not only does it read like a certain philosophical hegemony, but it assumes a host of tenets that are questionable at best. Let’s look at a few.

Why should we agree with the author that the “best tool we have” for understanding God’s eternity is analytic philosophy? Does that mean, as it surely seems to, that the best tool we have for understanding God is analytic philosophy? If so, that would be quite a shock to the thousands upon thousands of theologians who, because untimely born, never had access to the pearls of wisdom offered by this twentieth-century philosophical oyster. Not only so, but, if true, this means that God’s own revelation of himself is, at best, secondary and, at worst, relatively useless in our pursuit to discover what God is like; analytic philosophy can accomplish that without any need of what God himself has told us about his character.

…It is the task of theology to deal with the most fundamental problems and issues of the universe. Theology’s task is to help us understand who God is, how he relates to us and to the world, what pleases him, who we are, and so on. Those questions, contra many modern-day philosophers, need to be answered within the context first of all of what God has said. They are not questions that can be answered simply by an appeal to our own thoughts and ideas. God’s revelation must control the discussion of those issues. Second, and perhaps more importantly, it is from, through, and to God alone that all things are (Rom. 11: 36). Since that is the case, just how a particular “thing” is from, through, and to God is an important set of facts about that thing, facts to be understood, first of all, theologically. That is, a thing is to be understood, first of all, theologically. That is, a thing is to be understood within the context of God and his relationship to it. That, again, turns us first of all to God’s own revelation to see what, if anything, he has said about himself and his relationship to his creation. These two areas – who God is and how he relates to his creation – are two areas in which philosophy of religion, perhaps unwittingly, persistently errs.

One thing is for sure. God has said something about everything. He has told us that all things are created and that all things are sustained by him. He has told us that all things are to be done to his glory and that all things work according to the counsel of his own will. These notions have sweeping ramifications for any thing that we pursue, and so the revelation of God about that thing and his relationship to it is crucial for our understanding. Theology’s task is, at least, to help us understand the revelation of God. Give that objective, philosophy’s task is set.

It is simply not the case, therefore, that analytic philosophy holds the key to unlocking the attributes of God or his relationship to us or his world. Theology has been given that key. Thus, the Eimi/eikon relationship must be understood, first of all, theologically so that it can be applied and implemented philosophically (and in other areas) when the need arises.

…There is no doubt that in our use of revelation we must also use our reasoning faculty. It is likely true as well that philosophy can be most helpful in helping us clarify and explain the truths that are gleaned from God’s revelation. It is revelation, however, as God’s revelation, that must be used, consulted, pursued, mastered, and heard if we are to begin to address the problems (both intellectual and otherwise) that confront us.

K. Scott Oliphint. Reasons for Faith: Philosophy in the Service of Theology (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed, 2006), 186-189.