Why Do We (Really) Believe?

This post is an expansion on some of the arguments I started in my previous post: Witness, Apologetics, and the Law and Gospel. With these posts I want to start painting a picture of how reason and faith should be related within a Lutheran context.

In my previous post I stated that the use of apologetics in a witnessing situation is essentially an aspect of the law. As such it is not a function that creates and builds up faith (the gospel) but rather it brings to task the fallen reasoning of man and his accusations against God on the basis of reason (the law).

In this post I want to address the question: "Why do we really believe?"

As Lutherans we should be wary of the work of many modern Christian philosophers in the area of the justification of belief. Both your evidentialists and your reformed epistemologists have completely discarded the work of the Word and the Holy Spirit in the formation of faith, the result of which is the propagation of Arminian thought and the robbing of comfort to many Christians.
-

First off, hopefully with little argumentation, I want to be allowed to disregard the position of reformed epistemology. The foundationalist's argument that belief in God is essentially beyond criticism is absurd. Yes, I am pulling the absurdity card...lets leave it at that.
-

But, beyond the absurdity of their argument, reformed epistemology poses many difficulties for those who desire to uphold a Lutheran understanding of man and the reception of faith. Their argument, in some form or another, presupposes that there is an inherent nature in man that is drawn to belief in God or a god, and not only this, faith itself, thus making it "properly basic." This flies in the face of our well established understanding of anthropology. Lutherans believe that there is nothing inherent in man that can be inclined towards belief in God (not to mention the problem of the complete lack of special revelation). The only thing that is "properly basic," to misuse their terminology, for natural man, is sin; no "God shaped hole" (at least from fallen man's perspective). They have completely disregarded the need for the hearing of the gospel (Rom. 10:14) and the essential role of the Holy Spirit in the reception of faith (1 Cor. 12:3).
-

Evidentialists, to a lesser or greater degree, would claim that evidence is needed to hold a justified belief. If the evidence is not there, one's belief is irrational, and thus not justified. Under evidentialism one would say that one's reason is able to come upon a justified belief in God. While some may say that the Holy Spirit is also needed, this argumentation is merely semi-pelagian or synergeistic in character. Being that most evidentialist arguments for God's existence come from a natural theology this also does not leave the room for special revelation (specifically Scripture and Jesus' ministry) which is needed for the reception of faith (Rom. 10:14). They also, generally, do not hold that the ministry of the Holy Spirit is evidence on which to base belief. These are positions that are in complete disagreement with the words we confess:
-

"I believe that I cannot by my own reason or strength believe in Jesus Christ, my Lord, or come to Him; but the Holy Ghost has called me by the Gospel, enlightened me with His gifts, sanctified and kept me in the true faith; even as He calls, gathers, enlightens, and sanctifies the whole Christian Church on earth, and keeps it with Jesus Christ in the one true faith."
-

Here is the distinction that needs to be made: My ability to defend my faith with reason, apologetics, logic, and evidence, is not why I believe.
-

Quite literally, I can defend what I believe, but I can't explain to you why I believe it (at least not in a way that would convince you to believe). This is the clear testimony of Scripture: "For the Word of the cross is foolishness to those being lost, but to us being saved, it is the power of God" (1 Cor. 1:18); "For since in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom did not know God, God was pleased through the foolishness of preaching to save the ones believing" (1 Cor. 1:21). It is really an example of the theologia crucis: "We, on the other hand, preach Christ crucified (truly an offense to Jews, and foolishness to Greeks)" (1 Cor 1:23). Paul is not afraid to admit the absurdity of God coming to earth to be placed on a cross. This is because Paul knows the real power behind what he is preaching, that is, the Holy Spirit. It is behind the "Word of the cross," behind the "foolishness of preaching," it is behind preaching "Christ crucified" that the Holy Spirit works in the hearts of men.
-

Now, this is not to say that reason, logic, apologetics, etc. are not useful. There is a great need for these things. I will draw on some of my previous points in Witness, Apologetics, and the Law and Gospel.
-

These things are needed or useful for the following reasons:
-

1) The current state of, especially western, society is one where there are major obstacles to the promotion of the gospel. The hundreds of years worth of using reason, science, psychoanalysis, anthropology, "you name it," to discount the claims of faith are deeply entrenched in our culture and are a major road block for many people to come to faith. As such, reason or apologetics should serve the purpose in tearing down, under the proper functioning of the law (see previous post), the state of the flesh and the work of the devil that prevents the work of the Spirit through the gospel.
-

2) Reason, apologetics, etc. can help Christians, not as that on which to base their faith, but rather by fighting against the attacks of Satan and the flesh which cry in our heart: "Is it true that God has said, You shall not eat from any tree of the garden?" (Gen. 3:1).
-

As with any function of the law, reason is there to prepare for the work of the gospel.
-

But reason, enslaved in this age to the regnum mundi (as Gerhard Ebeling would argue; see previous post), can never be the grounds for why I believe. If reason were pure (that is, without the taint of sin) we might be able to defend belief in God, but this age makes pure reason an impossibility. The arguments hurled against faith, the foolishness of the cross, the flesh that is inclined toward unbelief, and the reality of the lies of Satan leave reason as shaky ground to base one's faith.
-

To express the Lutheran teaching on faith correctly, we must be led to say: "Though I can defend what I believe, this is not why I believe." On this is solid ground, in that, our subjectivity is traded for Christ's objectivity. It is through the work of the Holy Spirit working through Word and Sacrament on which I base my faith. It is such words as: "You are forgiven," "Given and shed for you," and the foolish "Word of the cross" that truly contain the "power of God." This is why we (whether we like it or not!) believe.

-

P.S. The first to explain the reference in the picture of the Great Pumpkin gets a gold star!!!

Witness, Apologetics, and the Law and Gospel.

This is something that I've thought about over the last couple months. I have always been a little wary, or maybe unclear, as to what the role of apologetics are in the witness of the Church. What I have come up with is a distinction between the law and the gospel as they pertain to apologetics.

Werner Elert writes: "[The law] serves not in the construction of the new man but in the destruction of the old." Law and Gospel (trans. Edward H. Schroeder. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1967), 36.

While this is more directed at an understanding of sanctification, I think it works perfectly well as a general statement about the nature of the law and the nature of the gospel: "The law destructs; the gospel constructs."

It is from this perspective that I will base my argument. The argument being: The use of apologetics in witnessing is an act of destruction, and thus correlative to the law, not the gospel. It is an act that tears down, not one that builds up.

The modern thoughts concerning evangelism in most of the Church catholic is that, apologetics should be used, in one way or another, to a lesser or greater extent, to "convince" people into the truth. While most would say that the Holy Spirit is also needed, their synergistic understanding of the acceptance of faith would lead them to believe that the reasoning and arguments behind their words are leading people to faith. This is due to their belief that there is at least some part of man that is able to "believe". Lutherans, of course, would take big issue with this.

The question for a Lutheran should be: Are apologetics a word of the law or a word of the gospel. The Evangelical's understanding would say that man's reasoning is able to lay hold of and believe in the truth, and thus apologetics becomes the gospel. Lutherans would say, no, this is not possible. Lutherans would say that the Holy Spirit is needed who works to build faith, and this only through the gospel.

Now, properly speaking, I don't see how the message of apologetics can be correlated with the word's of Christ's commission:

"Going into all the world, preach the gospel [which, according to Matt. was ενετειλαμην-- enjoined] to all the creation. The one believing and being baptized will be saved. And the one not believing will be condemned." (Mark 16:15-16)

Or the gospel that Paul received:

"Paul, a slave of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ according to the faith of the elect of God and full knowledge of the truth according to godliness, on hope of eternal life which the God who does not lie promised before the eternal times, but revealed in its own times in a proclamation of His Word, with which I was entrusted by the command of our Savior God." (Titus 1:1-3)

This properly is the gospel: "The one believing in me and being baptized will be saved." This is the message that the Holy Spirit works through to produce faith.

The message of apologetics is: the reality of God, sin, and possibly, the reality of Jesus and his resurrection. But properly speaking this is not yet the gospel; it is not the bestowal of the message of the life, death, and resurrection of Christ for the forgiveness of one's sins. I can believe in "God," sin, Jesus, and even the resurrection without being a Christian. In fact, Muslims believe in "God," sin, Jesus, and the bodily ascension of Jesus, and they certainly do not have the gospel.

Apologetics is an appeal to my ratio, my reason, and as such is not able to be overcome my mind because: "the mind of the flesh is enmity towards God; for it is not being subjected to the Law of God, for neither can it be." (Rom. 8:7)

Gerhard Ebeling writes that, Luther believed that,

"under regnum mundi [kingdom of the world] there falls the whole of reality extra Christum [outside of Christ], and that means extra fidem [outside of faith]…[regnum mundi] in the widest sense [includes] everything that concerns man, and thus everything that has to do with his ratio, but also everything that has to do with his will and his passions, and hence absolutely everything from the most trifling human activity to science, morals and religion.” “The Necessity of the Doctrine of the Two Kingdoms.” In Word and Faith. (trans. James W. Leitch, 386-406. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1963), 393.

The benefit of apologetics, therefore, cannot be seen as one of construction (gospel) but destruction (law).

The mind, extra fidem, is a mind that is ultimately enslaved to the flesh, and concupiscence. It is a reason that is faulty and which is inclined to accept the reason of the world and to reject the claims of Christ. Apologetics, therefore, is the attempt to combat this tendency of the mind, it is to show that the claims of Christianity are not illogical, unreasonable, or insupportable. While we cannot "prove" the claims of our faith, we can show that they are at least supportable. The arguments that Christianity are illogical, unreasonable, and insupportable, are things that block the work of the Holy Spirit, they are road blocks and defenses that support unbelief.

Much like sin, therefore, these are things that need to be torn down for the work of the Holy Spirit to proceed with the ministry of the gospel. Apologetics is a function of the law which calls into question minds that are enslaved to the flesh.

Properly speaking, as with any work of the law, apologetics does not produce something, rather it prepares for something. That something is the proper work of the Holy Spirit which comes with the message of the forgiveness of sins.

Therefore we need to be mindful of the fact that, just as one would preach the law against sin, apologetics is a function that will, by itself, produce nothing. We could preach against sin all we want, but if we don't preach the forgiveness of sins, nothing would come about. In the same way, we can "preach" apologetics all we want, but if we don't preach the forgiveness of sins, nothing will come about.

In this society, and in this day and age, man has made a concerted effort to take away from God any claim he might hold on the mind of man. Where apologetics might not be needed, or be as useful in Africa, in our society, on the other hand, we must do battle against the arguments of man. The sinful mind is just as much a roadblock to the Spirit as sin itself is. But this battle is not yet the work of the gospel. We need to be making this distinction clear in the increasingly Arminian church that crops up around us, even in our own synod.