Innate Ideas and Christian Theology

The use of Plato is nothing new in the world of philosophy and theology. However Bavinck was correct to follow this stream through what Christians have said. 

I really like the picture here: There is a Creator!

Innate ideas is nothing new.  Although Plato possibly formalised this in his Meno and other places, it is something worth thinking about.  Philosophy and theology are not the same discipline but there is overlap between the two. However, Theology is about the study of God whereas philosophy Is the ‘love of wisdom’.  If the love of wisdom is philosophy, then obviously parts of the Bible such as proverbs and Ecclesiastes would fall under this category.  For Christians the beginning of wisdom is the Fear of the Lord. 

It is a good thing for us to see what Bavinck has found out for us:

1. ·        Justin Martyr
2. ·        Clement of Alexandria
3. ·        Tertullian
4. ·        St Augustine
5. ·        Luther

Page 63 Justin Martyr

et al.) appealed to some of the church fathers but were mistaken about this. Justin Martyr, to be sure, refers to the idea of God as “humanity’s innate opinion concerning a matter that is hard to explain” but does not tell us what he means by “innate” (εμφυτος).?”

Page 63 Irenaeus

that is hard to explain” but does not tell us what he means by “innate” (εμφυτος).?” Irenaeus, writing against the Gnostics, does assert that the world has been created by God, reveals him, and makes him known, but he does not say a word about innate knowledge.

 

With the two above writers one can see something of innateness but it does not mean that it is interpreted a long the lines of Plato.   Something that Bavinck does not mention is that εμφυτος (emfutos) is also found in the book of James. 

I also think it an important question to know what εμφυτος means in the book of James:

“21 Therefore, putting aside all filthiness and all that remains of wickedness, in humility receive the word implanted, which is able to save your souls.”

 James 1:21

Bavinck did not have the power of computers to check his references, but he was going in the right direction.

In an essay I found:

(Ἔμφυτος Λόγος: A New Covenant Motif in the Letter of James; Jason A. Whitlark; Baylor University, Waco, Texas, USA; jason_whitlark@baylor.edu)

 

This was a very revealing book because he said that there were two types of interpretation on James:

·        A cosmological interpretation

·        A soteriological interpretation.

He looked at quite a few resources from the Early Church for the proper definition and his conclusion was that εμφυτος never meant that the human was born with an innateness (This would mean making one’s own salvation apart from God).  This word in James or the letter of Barnabas, Irenaeus and other Christian writers have never used it in this stoic way of interpreting it.  It has always been used with God implanting his grace through covenant.

In Whitlark’s conclusion he writes:

“Finally, Davids has noted that the call to receive the word that has already been implanted sounds contradictory. To “receive the implanted word

which has the power to save your soul,” however, has an interesting parallel

with a Pauline enablement motif that can possibly elucidate this paradox.

 In Gal 3:27, Paul states, “as many of you who were baptized in

Christ have put on Christ.” In Rom 13:14, he exhorts the Roman Christians

“to put on the Lord Jesus Christ.” Moreover, both the exhortation in

Romans and that in James follow upon the exhortation to “take off”

certain vices unbecoming one’s Christian confession. Charles

Talbert has demonstrated that the language of clothing or putting on is a

way divine enablement of the Christian life would have been understood.

He writes, “To be clothed by Christ means to be transformed by Christ

and to be enabled by Christ with Christ’s own power.” Thus, both in

James and in Galatians and Romans, we have an exhortation to embrace

and receive the ongoing, post-conversion power from God in order to live

as a faithful follower of Jesus Christ. While both Paul and the author of

James acknowledge that the Christian’s life is from God from beginning to

end, they also both acknowledge that their addressees are not passive recipients of this power. They must continue to recognize their ongoing need to

appropriate God’s power to withstand temptation and inherit life in the

age-to-come.

So then, what do these observations have to say about James’s place in

the broader early Christian mission? Margaret Mitchell has argued that

James is a letter written within Paulinism and attempts to show that Paul

and the “pillar apostles” are on the same page. If this is the case, I would

argue that an element of the script from that page is a shared soteriological

pattern. James is not a fringe element of early Christianity that represents

“a form of the Christian movement where soteriology centred not on

rebirth through ‘the gospel,’ but on observance of the Torah.” James does

not attempt to give balance to Paul’s radical view of grace by minimizing

the role and power of the gospel to live righteously before God. James participates in Paul’s full-orbed understanding of grace and uniquely articulates the necessity of a gospel-empowered life from beginning to end for the realization of eschatological salvation.”

 

Page 63

Tertullian

“… emphasizes the natural knowledge of God: In danger and distress all humans—despite their worship of false gods—invoke the one true God. And they learned this, not from Moses and the prophets, but from their own soul. “For from the beginning an inner knowledge of God has been an endowment of the soul.” The soul is the same among all peoples and by natural instinct Christian. By this Tertullian only means that some truths, such as the existence and unity of God, are known by nature and not just by special revelation: “For certain things are even known by nature.”

Page 64

Augustine

Somewhat more legitimate is the appeal to Augustine, who was influenced by Plato, as he himself acknowledges."  Augustine then gives more room for thought than to the senses.  We can only contemplate intelligible truths in the light of God.  This does not mean that for Augustine the soul has the capacity to contemplate God directly.

 

I feel that the late Colin Gunton and Bavinck would agree here that truths are mediated.  All knowledge is mediated in some way even Augustine knew this. 

 

Page 65 Luther

“In Lutheran theology the wholesome and true element inherent in the theory of innate ideas could not come into its own. Natural theology, both implanted” and “acquired,” was not well received there. By virtue of Luther's rejection of the scholastic doctrine that “what pertains to nature has remained unimpaired,” Luther allowed himself to be driven to an opposite extreme. According to him, the image of God in humanity was totally lost. “Apart from the Holy Spirit [human] reason is simply devoid of the knowledge of God. When it comes to divine matters, humans are totally in the dark.” Actually, what is still left to humans is only a “passive capacity,” the capacity to be saved. For the rest their understanding, will, and affections are limited to “civil affairs.” In spiritual things they are completely blind and dead.”

So, Bavinck is correct, Luther didn’t have any time for the scholastic way of doing things.  Actually, he dumped the traditional way of doing scholastic Bible interpretation altogether:

Instead of the

·        literal,

·        moral,

·        allegorical,

·        and anagogical

Luther just wanted the plain meaning of the text:

“Luther identified that the Scriptures had one sense, the literal or natural sense. This did not mean that he was a complete literalist. For example, he stated that figures of speech are meant to be taken figuratively. However, when the Scriptures speak plainly, they should be taken literally according to the normal use of language. The implication of this approach is that the Bible is clear in its meaning and can be understood by ordinary people.

 

    “It is the historical sense alone which supplies the true and sound doctrine.”

 

The most important principle of interpretation that Martin Luther used was “Scripture interprets Scripture.” The tools for properly interpreting the Bible are contained in the Bible itself. Thus, he delved into the New Testament to see how Jesus and the apostles had interpreted Scripture. There he found a valuable tool. He discovered that many Old Testament people, and institutions were to be understood as types or patterns that foreshadowed and proclaimed the Christ, who would surpass them and fulfil them. Thus, in his Preface to the Psalter, Luther wrote, “The true, the only sense of the Psalms is the Christ-sense.” From https://www.cui.edu/aboutcui/reformation500/articles/post/luther-and-biblical-interpretation

There is no room for Plato or Aristotle in Reformed interpretation of the Bible.  If one reads Calvin’s Institutes you won’t find a lot of quotations from Aristotle, if any.

Reflection

As far as innate ideas are concerned it was certainly not interpreted by the Church the same way the Greeks interpreted it.  Innateness in the soteriological sense was only what God put there through his grace at salvation (conversion e.g., a new mind and heart which is a brand-new creation).  True innateness happens at the new birth.  The natural innateness can point us towards the fact that there is a Creator but to come into a true knowledge of God we are dependent on the work of the Holy Spirit.  However, Plato was on a winner in that he realized that in humans there are things that we are born with.  However, could any of this innateness be able to point us to God?  No, not enough, we hit a dead end. 

As Tertullian might say; “What has Jerusalem got to do with Athens.” Greek ideas permeated the Roman world, and this is the world that Christianity started from.  Augustine has had a massive influence on Christianity throughout the centuries and he still does.  The question is should we dump some of his ideas because after all he was influenced up to a certain extent with Plato’s Innate ideas and everything that come with that.  We have to be careful though because Augustine was one of the greatest minds who has ever lived.  Yet his influence can still be felt today and perhaps we need to turn to the Late Colin Gunton in his book about the doctrine of creation to start to find answers or to change the direction that as Christians we are going in.

Next time we will look at natural Theology and what innateness means there.  At this point I have a lot of unanswered questions.  I need to reread Colin Gunton’s Doctrine of Creation, Augustine’s City of God, more Plato and why the Church made mistakes for buying into Augustine whole and complete without questioning the philosophical stuff such as Aristotle and Plato.  In Christendom we do not need Plato or Aristotle because God has spoken to us through his Son as the book of Hebrews reminds us.  

For me this raises questions about how Calvin interpreted Election (Double predestination that sounds very harsh) and Karl Barth who uses Jesus as the elect of God and the reprobate at the same time (Some have accused Barth of Universalism though he wasn't).  I think it all hinges on How Calvin used Augustine (including the philosophical baggage of some form of Platonism).