Return to Contents
Warfield, B. B. Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield (1851-1921) was born near Lexington,
Kentucky. He graduated from the College of New Jersey (later Princeton University) in 1871 and Princeton Theological Seminary in 1876. After studying at the University of Leipzig (1876-77), he supplied at the First Presbyterian Church in Baltimore, Maryland (1877-78). He taught at Western Theological Seminary, Allegheny, Pennsylvania (1878-87), before being called to teach theology at Princeton Theological Seminary, where he taught from 1887 until his death.
In addition to his biblical and theological writings, Warfield wrote apologetically related 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 (1918), Revelation and Inspiration (1927), Christology and Criticism (1929), and Studies in Tertullian and Augustine (1930). His articles with an apologetic theme included “Revelation” in the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (1915),“On the Antiquity and the Unity of the Human Race,” and “The Idea of Systematic Theology.”
Warfield’s View of Apologetics. John *Calvin and the Scottish Presbyterian Westminster Confessiontradition were anchoring theological influences on Warfield. He greatly respected his predecessor at Princeton, Charles Hodge. James McCosh implanted the Scottish *realism of Thomas *Reid (1710-96) in Warfield’s thinking. He also was heavily influenced by *Augustine and, to a lesser degree, by *Thomas Aquinas.
Warfield was preeminently an apologetical theologian. He stressed the need for apologetics and a rational faith founded on evidence.
Definition of Apologetics. Warfield defined apologetics as “the systematically organized vindication of Christianity in all its elements and details, against all opposition” {Works, 9:5). “What apologetics undertakes to establish is just this Christianity itself—including all its ‘details’ and involving its ‘essence’—in its unexplicated and uncompressed entirety, as the absolute religion” (ibid., 9).
Relation of Apologetics and Theology. In his “Idea of Systematic Theology,” Warfield spelled 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 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).
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 dominion Other religions may appeal to the sword, or seek some other way to propagate themselves. Christianity makes its appeal to right reason, and stands out among all religions, therefore, as distinctively the ‘ Apologetic religion ’ It is solely by reasoning that it has come thus far on its way to kingship” (,Selected Shorter Writings, 2:99-100).
On the relation of apologetics to the Bible, he said, “It is easy, of course, to say that a 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 can take his standpoint in them” (ibid., 2:98).
Faith and Reason. Warfield believed that the indicia (demonstrations of the Bible’s divine character) work side by side with the Holy Spirit to convince people of the truth of the Bible. Warfield agreed with Calvin that proofs cannot bring people to Christ or even convince them of the divine authority of Scripture. Nonetheless, Warfield believed that the Holy Spirit exercises his convincing power through them
Contrary to presuppositional apologetics (see Presuppositional Apologetics), there is common ground with unbelievers. “The world of facts is open to all people and all can be convinced of God’s existence and the truth of Scripture through them by the power of reasoning of a redeemed thinker.” In his 1908 article “Apologetics,” he affirmed that faith is a moral act 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, “ft is not faith but reason which investigates the nature and validity of this ground. . . . We believe in Christ because it is rational to believe in him, not even though it be irrational”
(Works, 9:15).
As a Calvinist, Warfield said that mere reasoning cannot make a Christian because of the inability for sinners to come to God under the curse of the fall. The problem is not that faith does not terminate on evidence but that a dead soul cannot respond to evidence. However, on the other hand, the Holy Spirit does not bring anyone to salvation apart from evidence. The Spirit 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 the faith of Christian men must rest” (ibid.).
To be sure, not every Christian can do apologetics, nor are many even aware of the rational 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 or to explicitly understand them Nonetheless, such understanding is necessary for the vindication of faith (ibid., 16).
The Various Steps of Apologetics. As a proponent of *classical 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 the superiority of Christianity over other systems (ibid., 10). He carved up the field by functions and which arguments meet which opponents in battle:
Philosophical apologetics establishes that God exists as a personal Spirit, as Creator,
Preserver, and Governor. Philosophical apologetics tackles antitheistic theories.
Psychological apologetics establishes the religious nature of humankind and the validity of human religious sensitivities. It involves the psychology, philosophy, and phenomena of religion. It faces naturalist attacks from “comparative religion” or “history of religions” movements.
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 and the ways he makes himself known.
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 of the “evidences for Christianity.”
Biblical apologetics establishes the trustworthiness of the Bible as a God-revealed document for the redemption of sinners (ibid., 13).
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 originally written texts or “autographs.” Warfield produced two major works, Revelation and Inspiration and Limited Inspiration [Inerrancy], and coauthored Inspiration with A. A. Hodge.
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 many years later among evangelicals known as the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy (see Geisler, Inerrancy). In general, Warfield is a spiritual ancestor of most classical apologists of the late twentieth century, such leaders as John Gerstner, Kenneth Kantzer, Arthur Lindsley, and R. C. Sproul.
Sources
N. L. Geisler, ed., Inerrancy.
A. A. Hodge andB. B. Warfield, Inspiration.
Μ. Ν0Π, "B. B. Warfield.”
D. Smith, B. B. Warfield, Scientifically Constructive Theological Scholarship.
R. C. Sproul et at, Classical Apologetics.
B. B. Warfield, Christology and Criticism.
--, Counterfeit Miracles.
--, The Gospel of the Incarnation.
--, "Introduction.”
--,An Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament.
--, Limited Inspiration.
--, The Lord of Glory.
--, Revelation and Inspiration.
--, "Revelation.”
--, Selected Shorter Writings of Benjamin B. Warfield, 2 vols.
--, Studies in Tertullian and Augustine.
--, The Works of Benjamin B. Warfield, 10 vols.
Wellhausen, Julius. Julius Wellhausen (1844-1918) was a German Bible scholar known as the father of modern biblical criticism (see Bible Criticism). He studied at Gottingen and taught at Gottingen, Greifswald, Halle, Marburg, and finally returned to Gottingen as historian, philologist, and master of Hebrew, Aramaic, Syriac, and Arabic.
Wellhausen’s most significant work, which presented a mature development of the historical critical method, was Introduction to the History of Israel (1878). He also wrote “Israel” in the ninth edition of Encyclopedia Britannica (1878) and Die Komposition des Hexateuchs (The Composition of the Hexateuch) (1877).
Wellhausen was influenced by G. W. F. *Hegel and Wilhelm Vatke, who applied the Hegelian dialectic of historical development to the development of the religion of Israel. From this platform, Wellhausen developed the documentary hypothesis.
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 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 that are held by superstitious people to possess magical power), to *polytheism, to henotheism (which is the belief in or worship of one God without denying the existence of other gods), to ethical monotheism The last stage was achieved by the writings of the prophets of the eighth century BC culminating in the preaching 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 religious perspective (see Archaeology, Old Testament; Bible, Evidence for; Old Testament Manuscripts; Pentateuch, Mosaic Authorship of; Redaction Criticism, Old Testament; Spinoza, Benedict; Strauss, David).
The result is the famous J-E-P-D theory of the authorship of the Pentateuch. According to 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 over a long period. These documents are identified as:
1. the Jehovist or Yahwist (J), ninth century BC
2. the Elohist (E), eighth century BC
3. the Deuteronomist (D), seventh century, about the time of Josiah, 640-609 BC
4. the Priestly (P), ca. fifth century BC
The Pentateuch was a mosaic put together from different authors who can be identified partly by their various uses of Jehovah (Yahweh) (J) or Elohim (E) for God or by references to the work of the priests (P) or to laws (D).
One or more “redactors” or editor/compilers brought together all of this evolutionary development within the religious history of Israel. Wellhausen assumes that there is a “popular religion” of Israel that must be discovered among the many impositions by later redactors, and when this religion is discovered, it reveals its form at each stage in the evolutionary development.
Evaluation. Wellhausen’s work is critiqued in the articles Bible Criticism; Pentateuch, Mosaic Authorship of; and related entries. In general, Wellhausen’s thought has guided the work of “negative” historical-critical efforts to undermine the authority of Scripture. The theory is still widely believed, though archaeological and other research has undermined its assumptions.
The Collapse of the J-E-P-D Theory. Deuteronomy provides one example of arguments 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 bookofthe law is a total fraud. Joshua, Moses’s immediate successor, attributed the book of Deuteronomy to Moses (Josh. 1:7), as does the rest of the Old Testament (Judg. 3:4; 1 Kings 2:3; 2 Kings 14:6; Ezra 3:2; Neh. 1:7; Ps. 103:7; Dan. 9:11; Mai. 4:4). Deuteronomy is the book of the law most quoted in the New Testament, with attribution to Moses (Acts 3:22; Rom 10:19; 1 Cor. 9:9). Jesus 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).
Geographical and historical details of the book display a firsthand acquaintance with sites Moses would have known; its covenantal forms also place it at the period of Moses (Kline).
Apparent references within the bookto a later period are easily explained. For example, Deuteronomy 34, with its description of Moses’s death, was probably written by his successor, Joshua, in accordance with the custom of the day.
Moses and the Entire Pentateuch. The evidence that Moses wrote Deuteronomy destroys the J-E-P-D theory as such. Variations of the theory still deny Moses is the author of all five books.
Four of the five books (excepting Genesis) claim to be written by Moses (see Exod. 24:4; Lev. 1:1; 4:1; 5:14; Num 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’s birth. In this 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 history of’ (as in 5:1; 10:1; 25:19). There is considerable evidence that Moses composed what we know as Genesis:
1. Moses had access to the family histories that traced their ancestry to Abraham and the beginning. As leader, Moses was familiar with God’s promises to give them Palestine (Gen. 12:1-3; 13:14-15; 15:18-21; 17:8; 26:3) after delivering them from Egypt (46:3-4; cf. Exod. 2:24).
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 Deuteronomy 1:8; 2 Kings 13:23; 1 Chronicles 1; and Matthew 19:8. It is lumped with the other four as books of Moses in Luke 24:27, 44.
3. From earliest times, Jewish teaching has attributed Genesis to Moses. References are found throughout the Jewish Talmud and in other Jewish writers, such as Philo and Josephus.
4. Exodus through Deuteronomy are incomplete without the background of Genesis. Together they form a narrative unit.
With the possible exception of some parenthetical explanatory material and updating of place names that changed, the language and culture of the entire Pentateuch reflect those of Moses’s day (see Albright, WilliamF.).
Other Evidence against Wellhausen ,s Hypothesis. Virtually the whole corpus of archaeological evidence has tended to prove Wellhausen’s evolutionary theory wrong. Most significant is the earliest findings at Ebla, Syria. The *Ebla tablets confirm monotheism extremely early, as opposed to Wellhausen’s supposition that it was a late evolutionary development from earlier polytheism and henotheism
Sources
Ο. T. Allis. The Five Books of Moses.
--, The Old Testament.
G. L. Archer Jr .,A Survey of Old Testament Introduction.
F. Delit/sch. New Commentary on Genesis.
N. L. Geisler and W. E. Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible.
R. K. Harrison, ‘Historical and Literary Criticism of the Old Testament.”
--,An Introduction to the Old Testament.
I. M. Kikawada and A. Quinn ,Before Abraham Was.
M. G. Kline, Treaty of the Great King.
E. Krentz, The Historical-Critical Method.
R. H. Pfeiffer, Introduction to the Old Testament.
J. Wellhausen, Die Komposition des Hexciteuchs.
--,Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel.
--, "Israel.”
J. W. Wenham, "History and the Old Testament.”
R. D. Wilson. A Scientific Investigation of the Old Testament.
Wells, G. A. Modern scholars have denied that Jesus did and said the things attributed to him by the Gospels (see Bible Criticism; Jesus Seminar). Few, however, have joined withG. A. Wells (1926-) in denying that the man Jesus of Nazareth ever existed. It is, perhaps, the curious nature of his ideas that has earned him some interest in theological circles. Wells believes that, if Jesus did exist, he was an obscure person whose story became patterned after mystery religions (see Mithraism) and Jewish wisdom literature.
In his books Did Jesus Exist? and The Historical Evidence for Jesus, Wells sees four stages in the development of the early ideas about Christ:
• Stage 1—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 Exist?, chap. 5).
• Stage 2—non-Pauline canonical Epistles, completed in the 70s. Jesus is now said to have lived on earth recently.
• Stage 3—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.
• Stage 4—the Gospels (ca. 90, Mark to ca. 120, John). The Gospels are more or less fabricated. They were accepted by the early church uncritically, since they did not conflict with established beliefs (see Habermas, chap. 2).
In view of these stages, Wells believes that historical facts about Jesus came late. He contends that Paul was uninterested in historical details, only a divine Christ. Jesus’s concept of wisdom, plus mystery religions, influenced the early picture. Early Christianity began without any contact with a historical Jesus. Thus, nothing can be known about such a man, since there is no firsthand information. The Gospel writers simply guessed about Jesus’s life, accepting what fit with their general views. If Jesus existed, he was probably an obscure peasant.
Difficulties with Wells’s Thesis. Problems with this type of argument are covered in other articles. See Acts, Historicity of; Archaeology, New Testament; Bible, Evidence for; Christ, Uniqueness of; Christ of Faith vs. Jesus of History; Jesus, Non-Christian Sources for; Jesus Seminar; New Testament, Dating of; New Testament, Historicity of; Son of Man, Jesus as.
Sources
W. F. Albright, "William Albright.”
R. Bauckham. Jesus and the Eyewitnesses.
M. Grant. Jesus.
G. Habermas, The Historical Jesus.
R. Nash, Christianity and the Hellenistic World.
W. Pannenberg. Jesus. God and Man.
J. A. T. Robinson, Redciting the New Testament.
G. A. Wells, Did Jesus Exist?
--, The Historical Evidence for Jesus.
E. Yamauchi, "Easter—Myth, Hallucination, or History?”
Wells, H. G. Life and Works. Herbert George Wells (1866-1946) was a scientific humanist who affirmed a new religious faith, a faith in man He was an admirer of Auguste *Comte and Herbert Spencer. Wells was an English journalist, secondary-level science teacher, and coauthor with Julian *Huxley of a popularized work, The Science of Life.
He “grew up in Victorian England; but he reacted violently, even as a child, against the evangelical faith of his mother.” Indeed, “he especially despised the doctrine of the Trinity” (Glover, 121). Nonetheless, Wells’s writings reflect many Christian truths, including that of original sin, seen in his belief in the “persistent wickedness” of human beings.
Wells wrote a series of science romances and other works, including The Time Machine (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 Careful (1941), New World Order (1939), and Mind at the End of Lts Tether (1945).
Wells’s Views. There are many words that describe the beliefs of Wells: evolutionism, antipessimism, *mysticism, *dualism, *finite godism, *agnosticism, and even *fideism What is consistent throughout his work is humanistic evolutionism (see Humanism, Secular).
Reacting to his early pessimism, Wells wrote, “I dismiss the idea that life is chaotic because it leaves my life ineffectual, and I cannot contemplate an ineffectual life patiently.” Further, “I 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 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 voluntary and deliberate determination to believe, it is a choice made” (First and Last Things, 66-67).
In 1917, he professed to have found salvation from the purposelessness of life, described in a book titled God the Invisible King. William Archer claimed that here Wells saw himself as the apostle of a new religious faith (Archer, 32).
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 Mind of mankind but a being with a character of his own.
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.”
In the end, Wells turned pessimistic (Mind at the End of Lts Tether). He despairs that man will be able to adapt and fears he will go the way of the dinosaur. Nevertheless, he believes evolution will go on through some other organism.
Evaluation. For an evaluation of Wells’s views, see the following articles: Agnosticism; Dualism; Evolution; Fideism; Finite Godism; Humanism, Secular; Mysticism.
Sources
W. Archer, God and Mr. Wells.
W. B. Qover, "Religious Orientations of H. G. Wells.”
H. G. Wells, First and Last Things.
God the Invisible King. -,Mind at the End of Its Tether.
Whately, Richard. Richard Whately (1786-1863) was an English logician and theologian and archbishop of Dublin (1831-63). His bookLogic (1826) set forth the essence of his understanding of the use of reason He left behind his own memoir, Life and Correspondence (1866), which was published posthumously by his daughter. Whately also edited 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 work, he satirized skepticism by reducing to the absurd the logic used to deny the authenticity of the Bible.
Using the still-living historical figure NapoleonI (1769-1821) as an example, Whately applied David *Hume’s (1711-76) principles of skepticism He said it was no wonder the public was still occupied with recounting the exploits of Napoleon, given their extraordinary character. But no one seemed to be asking the crucial question of whether Napoleon even existed. Whately noted that the unquestioned is not necessarily unquestionable. People admit 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.
Upon examining the evidence, Whately concludes that, aside from the rare firsthand witness, the newspaper had become the authority for truth. But using Hume’s three principles of credibility (see New Testament, Historicity of), the authority of the newspaper fails on all points. Hume asked of witnesses:
1. whether they have the means of gaining correct information
2. whether they are interested in concealing truth or propagating falsehood
3. whether they agree in their testimony
“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 depends; first, we have no assurance that they have access to correct information; second, they have an apparent interest in propagating falsehood; and, thirdly, they palpably contradict each other in the most important points” (Historic Doubts, 266). Whately challenges the free thinker to weigh all the evidence, “and if he then finds it amounts to anything more than a probability,” Whately said he would congratulate him for his easy faith (ibid., 271).
Whately insists that the story becomes even more doubtful when it partakes of the extraordinary. Tracing the incredible nature of Napoleon’s military exploits, Whately asked whether anyone would believe this, yet not believe in miracles. For it seemed to him that Napoleon had violated the laws of nature (ibid., 274). Hence, every skeptic who follows his own principles should reject such stories about Napoleon as highly improbable.
In addressing the question of motive, Whately pointed out that while the story about Napoleon may be true, a more ingenious one could not have been fabricated for the amusement 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 runs contrary to their experience but to follow their principles consistently. “If, after all that has been said, they cannot bring themselves to doubt the existence of Napoleon Bonaparte, they must at least acknowledge that they do not apply to that question the same plan of reasoning which they have made use of in others” (ibid., 290).
Whether any skeptics announced their doubt about Napoleon, a few of the more open-minded should have been encouraged to check their biases regarding biblical accounts of miracles in general, and the New Testament’s record of Jesus in particular.
D. Hume, Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, book 10.
R. Whately, Historic Doubts Relative to Napoleon Bonaparte.
Whitehead, Alfred North. Alfred North Whitehead (1861-1947) is the father of the contemporary worldview known as *panentheism (all-in-God), which is not to be confused with *pantheism (all is God), or process theology. He was born on the Isle of Thanet, the son of an Anglican minister. He attended Sherborne public school in Dorset, learning classics, history, and mathematics. He attended Trinity College, Cambridge, on a mathematics scholarship (1880-84) and was awarded a fellowship at Trinity in 1884.
His 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 Russell, 1910-13).
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).
Later, at Imperial College of Science and Technology (1914-24), he produced “Space, Time, and Relativity” (1915); The Organization of Thought (1917); An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Natural Knowledge (1919); The Concept of Nature (1920); and The Principle of Relativity (1922).
A third period of writing (1924-47) stressed the philosophy of history and reality as well as cosmology and metaphysics. The transitional period (1925-27) brought forth Science and the 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 and Reality (1929), Adventures of Ideas (1933), Modes of Thought (1938), and Essays in Science and Philosophy (1947).
Evaluation. His underlying epistemology of relative truth and morality is covered in Morality, Absolute Nature of; Truth, Nature of). On the process view of God and reality, see Panentheism. The process concept of evil is exposed in Evil, Problem of.
L. Ford, "Biblical Recital and Process Philosophy.”
N. L. Geisler, "Process Theology.”
N. L. Geisler and W. D. Watkins, Worlds Apart, chap. 4.
D. F. Lindsey, "An Evangelical Overview of Process Theology.”
B. Loomer, "A Response to David Griffin.”
A. N. Whitehead, Process and Reality.
--, Religion in the Making.
William of Ockham. Modern skepticism (see Agnosticism) did not begin with David *Hume. Its roots are in the late Middle Ages with William of Ockham (1285-1349). Ockham was the younger contemporary of Duns Scotus (1266-1308) and *Thomas Aquinas (1224-74). He stood at the end of the Middle Ages and contributed to the rise of the modern age. Whereas skepticism flowered in David Hume (1711-76), its roots were in William of Ockham
Ockham’s thought had a significant influence on the radical empiricism and skepticism of Hume, the ethical situationalism of Joseph Fletcher (see Morality, Absolute Nature of), the idealism of George *Berkeley (1685-1753), and the antitransubstantiation of Martin *Luther (1483-1546), as well as ethical voluntarism, nominalism, and the univocity of religious language (see Analogy, Principle of).
Epistemological Skepticism. His skepticism was manifest on three levels: epistemological, methodological, and apologetic. In his epistemology, he was a nominalist and a skeptical empiricist.
Ockham distrusted the senses. He stressed intuition. He held that essences or universals were 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 not real. Only individual humans exist.
Nominalism has serious implications when applied to the fall of humanity and its redemption. How can a sinful being inherit a single nature if there is no such thing as a nature? 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 one essence, if there are no essences?
Ockham argued that since God was omnipotent he could do anything. He could create the idea of a tree in our mind, even without the presence of a tree (see God, Nature of). This, 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 there was no world? To apply Ockham to a later skeptic, could not the “demon” conceived by Rene *Descartes (1596-1650) deceive us into believing a nonexistent world existed?
Even without malevolent deception, why could not a benevolent God create impressions he desired without there being any external object corresponding to them?
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 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 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, 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 Berkeley later arrived.
Apologetic Skepticism. Ockham was not a skeptic about the existence of God. He was a theist. However, his skepticism undermined the apologetic defense of theism His objections to the *cosmological argument anticipated Hume and Immanuel *Kant. Ockham raised at least three questions about the cosmological argument (Ockham, 129ff; see God, Objections to Arguments for).
The Possibility of an *Infinite Series. Ockham denied that an essentially related infinite regress of causes was impossible (see Kalam Cosmological Argument). Since essentially related causes (for example, father begetting son) need not be simultaneous, they could be originating causes and not conserving causes. The father is not the continued cause of the son’s existence. Only if this simultaneity of the here-and-now conserving cause is added to the concept of an essentially related series of causes, argued Ockham, is an infinite regress impossible.
It is contradictory to affirm that there is no First Cause for what is right now being conserved in existence. So the cosmological argument is valid in reference to what now exists but not for any original creation.
Knowledge of Efficient Causes. Anticipating Hume, Ockham based knowledge of efficient causes on experience (see Causality, Principle of). Causality is defined as “that whose existence or presence is followed by something” (Maurer, 270). The distinction anticipates Hume’s criticism that there is no basis in experience for making a necessary connection between cause and effect. But the inescapability of the conclusion of the cosmological argument depends on the necessity of the connection between cause and effect. Ockham thus placed his razor on the central cord binding the cosmological argument.
Inability to Prove One God. Ockham also held that one could not prove in an absolute sense the existence of only one God (see God, Nature of; Theism). Only if the unity of God is taken to mean “the most perfect Being that actually exists” can it be said that the unity of God has been proven. If, however, as Christian theists insist, the unity of God refers to the “most perfect” Being possible, then the unity of God cannot be proven. The proposition “God exists” is not a self-evident proposition. Many doubt it, and a self-evident proposition cannot be doubted. Nor is the absolute unity of God known through other propositions, which can also be doubted, nor by experience, for experience can provide one only with the actual, not with the possible. Therefore, there is no way to demonstrate that God is absolutely one.
Univocal Religious Language. In one area, Ockham held the line against skepticism He spoke strongly against any equivocal or analogical concepts as applied to God. Ockham argues convincingly that no concept can have a totally different or equivocal meaning as applied to God. For if it did, then we would have no idea what it meant. Likewise, an analogous concept must have an element of sameness, otherwise it would be totally different. This element of sameness is really univocal. Hence, without univocal concepts we can know nothing about God.
While the point is well taken when speaking about univocal concepts, Ockham seemed not to understand the need for analogical predication, such as was posited by Aquinas. That is, we must define terms used of God and creatures in the same way, but they are applied in a different way. God is infinitely good, while creatures can strive only for finite goodness. Goodness cannot be applied univocally or in entirely the same way to the infinite and the finite (see Analogy, Principle of).
Evaluation. Ockham’s epistemological skepticism is discussed in the articles Causality, Principle of; First Principles; Hume, David; Realism. Apologetic skepticism is treated in Cosmological Argument; God, Objections to Proofs for; Hume, David; Kant, Immanuel.
As for Ockham’s methodological skepticism, even granting his premises, Ockham’s razor does not work in discussions of God, since it presupposes the existence of an omnipotent God as a premise. Even granting that God could create ideas in us without external objects does not mean God would do this. The theistic God of Ockham is not only all-powerful but also all-good. And a omnibenevolent God will not deceive (see Essentialism, Divine). Ockham’s skepticism does not work without the questionable principle of parsimony. But how can one prove that positing the fewest causes possible is the way to determine what is true. This is not a first principle. At best, it is only a general guide in scientific matters. It is no universal rule in metaphysical issues.
Why assume an external world is redundant? God may have very good purposes for it. Using Ockham’s own razor, it can be viewed as a simpler explanation that an objectively real world is sending impressions to everyone than that God must create impressions in every human being individually. Ockham’s explanation that God could be directly creating ideas of an external world in every human being is Deus ex machine! (the God-out-of-the-machine). It invokes the supernatural to save its conclusion from collapse. God must pop out of the machine and save it. Again, it is simpler in this case to take the natural explanation than to invoke a supernatural one.
Sources
P. Boehner, Ockham: Philosophical Writings.
N. L. Geisler and W. Corduan, Philosophy of Religion.
E. Gilson, History of Christian Philosophy in the Middle Ages.
A. Maurer, Medieval Philosophy.
William of Ockham, “Expositio super librum Perihermenias
--, Ordinatio (D. II, Q. viii, prima redactio).
--, Summa totius logicae (I, c.xiv).
Witnesses, Hume’s Criteria for. David *Hume (1711-76) is the skeptic exemplar for modern times (see Agnosticism). He outlines the basic criteria that he believed necessary for testing the credibility of witnesses. In his own words, “We entertain suspicion concerning any matter of fact when the witnesses contradict each other, when they are but few or of a doubtful character, when they have an interest in what they affirm, when they deliver their testimony with hesitation, or with too violent asseverations [declarations]” (Hume, 120).
These concerns can be framed as four questions:
1. Do the witnesses contradict each other?
2. Is there a sufficient number of witnesses?
3. Are the witnesses truthful?
4. Are they nonprejudicial?
Hume’s tests can be readily applied to the New Testament witnesses for the resurrection of Christ.
No Contradiction of Witnesses. The evidence is that the testimony of the witnesses is not contradictory (see New Testament, Historicity of). Each New Testament writer tells a crucial and overlapping part of the whole story.
• Christ was crucified (around AD 33) under Pontius Pilate in Jerusalem
• He claimed to be the Son of God and offered miracles in support of his claim
• He was crucified, confirmed to be dead, and buried, and yet three days later the tomb was empty (see Christ, Deity of).
• Jesus physically appeared to a number of groups of people over the next weeks, in the same nail-scarred body that had died.
• He proved his physical reality to them so convincingly that these skeptical men boldly preached the resurrection a little over a month later in the same city, whereupon thousands of Jews were converted to Christianity.
There are minor discrepancies in the Gospel accounts. One account (Matt. 28:5) says there was
one angel at the tomb; John says there were two angels (John 20:12). Such conflicts are not contradictions in that they are not irreconcilable. Matthew does not say there was only one angel there; that would be a contradiction. We are uncertain of whether the two texts are speaking of the same moments (see Bible, Alleged Errors in). Also, minor differences in testimony are not what Hume had in mind in his first rule. One would not expect authentic, independent witnesses to give identical testimony. If they did, we might discount their testimony, assuming they were in collusion.
Number of Witnesses. There are twenty-seven books in the New Testament written by about nine different persons, all eyewitnesses or contemporaries of the events they recorded (see New Testament, Historicity Of). When threatened by the authorities, the apostles said, “We cannot but speak of what we have seen and heard” (Acts 4:20). Peter claimed to be a witness of Jesus (1 Peter 5:1). In 2 Peter 1:16, he wrote, “For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty” (KJV). The author of the Fourth Gospel said, “And he that saw [it] bare record, and his record is true: and he knoweththat he saithtrue, that ye might believe” (John 19:35 KJV). He adds, “This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true” (John 21:24 KJV). Indeed, John claimed about Christ, “That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life. . . . That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you” (1 John 1:1,3 KJV). And Luke said, “Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word” (Luke 1:1-2 KJV).
Six books are crucial to the topic of New Testament miracles (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, and 1 Corinthians). These six books by five writers bear witness to the miracle of the resurrection. Even critical scholars now acknowledge that these books were written before AD 70, while contemporaries of Christ remained alive. There is little argument that 1 Corinthians was written by the apostle Paul around AD 55 or 56, only about two decades after the death of Christ. This is a powerful witness to the reality of the miracle of the resurrection. It is a very early document. It is written by an eyewitness of the resurrected Christ (1 Cor. 15:8; cf. Acts 9). Paul refers to more than five hundred who had seen and heard the resurrected Christ directly (1 Cor. 15:6). At the time, most of these witnesses were alive, available for cross-examination (see Resurrection, Evidence for).
Truthfulness. Few challenge the fact that the New Testament provides a high standard for morality, particularly in Jesus’s emphasis on love (Matt. 5-7; 22:36-37). His apostles repeated this teaching in their writings (e.g., Rom 13; 1 Cor. 13; Gal. 5). They even died for what they taught about Christ (2 Tim 4:6-8; 2 Peter 1:14), an unmistakable sign of their sincerity.
In addition to teaching that truth is a divine imperative (Rom 12:9), it is evident that the New Testament writers were scrupulous about truth in their writings. Peter declared, “We did not follow cunningly devised fables” (2 Peter 1:16). The apostle Paul insisted, “Do not lie one to another”
(Col. 3:9). The New Testament writers were honest men, willing to die for the truth of what they had written. Further, the New Testament writers’ statements overlap with the discovery of historians and archaeologists, proving them to be accurate (see Acts, Historicity of; Archaeology, New Testament). Archaeologist Nelson Glueck concludes, “It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference. Scores of archaeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or exact detail historical statements in the Bible” (Glueck, 31). There is no proof that the New Testament writers ever lied in their writings or deliberately falsified the facts. As Harvard legal expert Simon Greenleaf concluded, their testimony shows absolutely no sign of perjury (see Greenleaf).
Finally, the New Testament record has received strong and significant support from historians of this Roman period. Noted Roman historian A. N. Sherwin-White chided scholars for not recognizing the historical value of the New Testament documents compared to the sources of Roman history (Sherwin-White, 188-91). Another noted historian of the period, Colin Hemer, presented strong evidence that supports the historical nature of the book of Acts and its Lucan authorship (by AD 62), placing it “unequivocally in the lifetime of many eyewitnesses and surviving contemporaries of Jesus, Peter, and Paul, as prospective readers who could object to the presence of material falsification” (Hemer, 409-10).
Unprejudiced Witnesses. Nor were witnesses of the miracles of Christ, particularly his resurrection, predisposed to believe the events to which they gave testimony.
The apostles themselves disbelieved the first reports that Christ had risen from the dead (see Resurrection, Evidence for). The story of the women “seemed to them like idle tales, and they did not believe them” (Luke 24:11). Even when some of the disciples saw Christ themselves, they were “slow of heart to believe” (Luke 24:25). When Jesus appeared to ten apostles and showed them his crucifixion scars, “they still did not believe for joy, and marveled” (Luke 24:41). Thomas protested that he would not believe unless he could put his finger in the scars in Jesus’s hand (John 20:25).
Jesus also appeared to unbelievers, his unbelieving half-brother, James (John 7:5; 1 Cor. 15:7), and the greatest unbeliever of the day—Saul of Tarsus (Acts 9).
Witnesses to the resurrection had nothing to gain personally from their testimony. They were persecuted and threatened with death for their stand (cf. Acts 4, 5, 8). As a matter of fact, most of the apostles were martyred. Certainly, it would have been much more profitable to deny the resurrection.
To discount the testimonies of those who believed in the resurrected Christ is like discounting an eyewitness of a murder because he actually saw it occur. The prejudice in this case is not with the witnesses but with those who reject their testimony.
Finally, to reject a witness simply because they have some kind of bias is groundless. Everyone has a bias or set of beliefs. No one’s testimony could be accepted on anything if every bias were a disqualification. Doctors are biased in favor of a patient’s survival. Yet they can still be trusted to give an objective analysis of the patient’s condition. Richard Whately argued satirically that we cannot believe the military exploits about Napoleon, since the British practically demonized him and the French virtually worshiped him But in fact people do not discard the testimony just because those offering it have a bias. Rather, they examine carefully the testimony in order to determine the facts.
Conclusion. Hume was one of the great skeptics of modern times. He devised criteria by which he believed one could eliminate all belief in miracles. However, when his criteria are applied to witnesses to the resurrection of Christ, they pass as credible. This confirms the Christian contention that the New Testament witnesses were reliable and, therefore, that the New Testament accurately reports what Jesus said and did (see New Testament, Historicity of).