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 non-Christians is based on their belief either in one absolute
person of God (Islam and Judaism), in Brahman (Hinduism), or in 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 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 a Muslim, the term God for him means Allah of the Koran.
If he holds to 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, the fullness of which they will receive in the
future at the time of consummation. Indeed, this perspective is very different
from that of pantheism. The pantheistic Hindu 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 the 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]
According to Scripture, the 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, which is about God, ourselves, and other creations.
The question is, how do people know that God has revealed it? To answer, people must start
from Scripture and not from general revelation because the Bible clearly states
that God has revealed Himself through general revelation, but sinners suppress the truth in
unrighteousness ( Rom. 1:18).
However, further questions arise. Can Christian
Scripture give true knowledge about God, human beings, and nature? Evidentialist 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 archaeology. A Christian apologist like R.C. Sproul (also a
Reformed theologian) holds this position. He says that if there is any
subject that has given us reason for optimism about the infallibility of
Scripture, it must be the research of history.[3] He also
says that the scrolls from Ugarit, Qumran, and Ebla have made numerous contributions to our understanding of the
ancient world. The Nuzi and Armenian tablets have solved many problems in the Old
Testament. [4] But the question is, why must the research of history give us optimism,
and why does it not rely on the fact that the Bible is true because
it is the Word of God? The Reformed presuppositionalism
argument states that history and archaeology cannot test Scripture because it, as God's Word, is the highest standard; therefore, history, archaeology, philosophy, psychology, science, and other
subjects must subordinate to it. Indeed, history and archaeology, as well as other subjects, have many
contributions to our understanding of ancient times, but it is incorrect to say that the research of
these subjects must determine our optimism about the Bible. The Christian's
true optimism about the infallibility of Scripture lies in the fact that it is
revealed and inspired.[5] by God. This statement is generally upheld 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 autographs, can the manuscripts also be infallible? The answer is that the manuscripts are not infallible, yet they are also word of God, which has authority, for God, who gave the original text, is also the God who has the sovereignty to provide for 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 means of its justification. Van Til says that even the words "I am thirsty" were spoken by Christ on the cross so as to 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 they were[9]
To conclude, the Bible is true because it is the word of God through the revelation and inspiration of the Holy Spirit. God cannot be false; therefore, the Scripture, as the word of God, also cannot be false. The infallible and inerrant revelation of God becomes the basis 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 the 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 as epistemology. However, there is a close relationship between this principle and 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 about. 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 speak about the unity and diversity in the realm of
epistemology.
The one and many problem has been the problem of philosophy since the age of Thales. He said that the substance of all things is water.[11] Therefore, he stresses the oneness (unity) of all things. This doctrine has been rejected by others like Empedocles and Anaxagoras. For example, Empedocles states that there are four primary substances: air, water, fire, and soil,[12] and Anaxagoras says that there are numerous substances.[13] Indeed, these philosophers stress the plurality (diversity) of the universe. But another philosopher, Parmenides, emphasizes again the unity of all things. He believes that existence must be one and that there are no other things that exist.[14] However, Heraclitus rejects this tenet and says, “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 ideas. By ideas, he means the ultimate reality or primary reality (eidos).[16] Plato illustrates this view in his book "Republic," which is the parable of the cave. The illustration is as follows: In a dark underground cave, some prisoners have been tied since their early ages and can only see the wall in front of them. Through the light behind them, they can see the shadows of men who walk and perform all their activities behind the prisoners. Indeed, they assume that the shadows of the men are the true reality. However, one of them escapes and goes out of the cave; consequently, he can see the world outside 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 none of them believes 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 that 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 ideas 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 provides a different solution from that of Plato when he states that everything consists of matter (hylē) and form (morphē).[21] Here, Aristotle refutes Plato's teaching about the world of ideas and states that things always consist of matter and form.
Now we turn to the East. In a pantheistic worldview, especially in the Hinduism of Shankara, plurality is seen as an illusion.[22] Shankara sees the self (atman) as the only reality, and all other things are the result of foolishness.[23] By self (atman), Shankara does not mean ego (ahankara), but the self that is hidden in the depths; when this self is known, it signifies that there is no foolishness or illusion (maya), and there is neither microcosm nor 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 rejects plurality because it is seen 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 usage. [26] All things that exist cannot change, and only names (and their distinctions) do.[27] All things that exist cannot change, and only names (and their distinctions) do.[28] Another Chinese
thinker, Hui Shi, argues that distinctions do not exist in the world.[29] Therefore, this view is pantheistic in its characteristics . 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? We can say that all things are always seen as one and many because they reflect their Maker: the Trinity God. Therefore, on the one hand, when
people stress unity alone, it is meaningless. For instance, if the
color of this world is only white, people cannot understand the meaning of colors. Another example is that if this world consists of only water, people cannot derive any meaning from 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, they also have 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 acknowledging its unity. By discarding its oneness, we will only encounter a disorderly family.
Many philosophers - as has been stated above - speak extensively about the relationship of unity and diversity; yet, when they seek the substances of unity and diversity, they only obtain abstractions. 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?
Consequently, the possible answer to be given here is that it is only in light of the doctrine of the Trinity that all these philosophical problems receive their correct answer. In "The Defense of the Faith," Van Til states that it is solely in the doctrine of the Trinity that 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 man who use this kind of logic.[35] However, it was not Aristotle who was the author of this logic. Reformed Christians believe that in common grace, God made this law known through Aristotle.[36] 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 as 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 by definition, also belong to trees.
There are no parts of human life and the whole universe that can escape this logic. Even if someone is keeping silent, the existence of this law is 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 explained as follows: If there are two or more statements that contradict each other, people who maintain the both/and thought still believe that these contradictory statements are equally true. Indeed, this is false logic and has pantheistic characteristics. Ramakrishna, a pantheistic thinker, says that all religions are the same, and these religions are only different ways to God. According to him, one religion calls this God God ( Christianity ), another religion calls Him Allah (Islam), others call Him Jehovah (Judaism), and the rest call Him Brahman (Hinduism).[38] He creates 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 a both/and spirit, and as a false logic, it has a contradictory factor. For example, when Christians say that the Trinity is the only God (either/or kind of logic), then according to his both/and thought, Ramakrishna must say that this Christians' belief is false because Ramakrishna has to maintain his both/and kind of "logic." However, when he maintains this both/and perspective 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 speaking about the Christian faith. Ronald Nash asserts that, for many Christians, logic is considered an enemy of faith.[40]
To make this problem clear, we need a clarification. If what Christians mean about logic is the false logic of both/and, it is correct to reject it. But as far as it concerns 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 this 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 has also 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 Christian epistemology are: First, the revelation of God, particularly the Bible, through which people can obtain a true understanding of God, humanity, and other creatures (nature). Furthermore, Christians' understanding of these things is confirmed by 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 of one and many and the law of logic become the second and third bases of Christian epistemology.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
[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.
Yayasan GKKR (Gerakan Kebangunan Kristen Reformed) didirikan oleh
Muriwali Yanto Matalu dan bergerak di bidang penginjilan, pengajaran firman
Tuhan yang murni, apologetika, dan mandat budaya. Untuk informasi lengkap klik
ini: GKKR. Untuk dukungan silakan kontak bendahara: WA 082132132361.
Komentar
Posting Komentar