(Part two of a two-part series on Christ, the cross, and apologetics.)
Yesterday morning in my philosophy of religion class, we were studying a famous exchange between logical positivist A.J. Ayer and Jesuit philosopher Frederick Copleston. These two intellectual giants were tangling over the question of whether it was possible to have empirical knowledge of God. Copleston argued that one could, but the difficulty, Ayer maintained, was that intuitions or feelings of God’s presence were not quantifiable in terms of the five senses, and therefore not properly empirical.
“Because on Copleston’s view God doesn’t have a body, you can’t experience Him through the senses, although you may have a direct perception of Him with your mind,” my professor said. “Of course, you could experience Jesus empirically…”
I admit I kind of tuned out after this point in the lecture, because it set me off on a tangent resonating with my meditations on apologetics and the theology of the cross from this weekend. Paul says in 1 Timothy 2:5, “For there is one God, and there is one mediator between god and men, the man Christ Jesus.” Might it be the case that many of the “problems” in Christian apologetics and philosophy of religion come from trying to come to knowledge of God apart from His appointed Mediator? This was one of the prideful errors with which Luther indicted the theologians of glory. The thought stayed with me throughout the day.
How might this kind of Christ-centered approach to apologetics work in practice? Let’s consider the above problem of coming to knowledge of God’s existence and character. One might think, following Kant, that it is problematic or even impossible to know what God is like in Himself from our limited human perspective. It is not problematic, however, to believe that mere humans can come to the knowledge of an utterly transcendent God if that God Himself became a man. In fact it is utterly crucial that we have a God-Man Mediator in order to come to knowledge of God, as the context of 1 Timothy 2:5 is about coming to know the truth. Let us consider, too, the present tense of that verse: “There is one mediator.” Christ’s Incarnation is ongoing. As He sits at the right of His Father in Heaven right now, He is fully God and fully man. Is it strange to think, then, that He may reveal Himself to human beings? Christ’s Incarnation, Atonement, and ongoing Mediation mean that the epistemological and moral (because of the effects of sin on our minds) problems of coming to know God are not problems at all. Whenever God chooses to reveal Himself, He does. Scripture goes on to indicate that the way He does so is through His spoken word of the Gospel and His inscripturated word of the Bible, which includes the apostles’ testimony to their empirical experience of Jesus (Rom. 10:17, 1 Cor. 15:1-8, 2 Tim. 3:16, 2 Peter 1:16-21, 1 John 1:1-3).
Or take the problem of evil. A Christ-centered approach to evil would include some of the following points:
- Jesus suffered for sin. If God Himself suffers evil in Christ, then our suffering is not meaningless.
- The cross of Christ shows that God undermines the greatest evil for His good end.
- The cross shows God defeating and destroying evil and bringing justice, inviting us into His Kingdom.
I believe these three points have been argued by Tim Keller, Carl Trueman, and N.T. Wright, respectively. None of them argue in an abstract and, what is in at least one sense of the term, sub-Christian way. Neither do they offer a clean syllogism for an answer. I think that is a good thing.
Well, this is just a thought, a starting point for further discussion. What do you think? Might a Christ-centered approach alleviate some of the perennial problems of Christian apologetics?
