The Apostle Paul (and Karl Barth) vs. Philosophy of Religion

In his commentary on Paul’s letter to the Romans, Karl Barth repeatedly and approvingly quoted the philosopher Nietzsche. For his many faults (and there were indeed many), Barth had come to the conviction that his adherence to theological modernism had to be abandoned. Modernism, or Liberalism as it was often called, centered its study of religion around man and what man could know and believe. In the face of rationalism and the Enlightenment’s newfound confidence in a purely skeptical approach to scientific knowledge, European theology had reconfigured itself around what could be known, even intuitively, by all men. While this project was begun by orthodox theologians in the seventeenth century, radical reconfiguration of Christian doctrine began with Schleiermacher in the eighteenth century. With Schleiermacher, the project changed from finding a point of contact with unbelieving man to changing Christianity so it could be accepted by unbelieving man.

The reason for Barth’s approval of Nietzsche in his commentary on Romans was his newfound rejection of Modernism’s attempt to ground religious knowledge in man rather than in God. Barth had come to a radical position on the doctrine of special revelation. His new beliefs were grounded in the writings of the Apostle Paul, the Reformers, and the theologians of what Barth referred to as “the old orthodoxy.” If God is not a projection of man or the common spirit among men, and if he is not naturally known by sinful man, then on a purely natural level the world is just as Nietzsche believed it to be. The world, Barth came to believe, is a world without God. Apart from Christ, God is dead to us. As problematic as this perspective is, and as much as it struggles to draw a distinction between “natural” (as created by God) and “sinful” (as a perversion of God’s creation), there is a refreshing reminder in Barth’s thought to a vitally important aspect of the Apostle Paul’s theology.

In his first letter to the Corinthians, Paul writes,

“The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.”

While it may be argued that Paul is here referring to the saving knowledge of Jesus Christ, the context shows that he is actually discussing Christian teaching as a whole. As far as Paul is concerned, it is not possible for any aspect of Christian doctrine to be known internally and convincingly apart from the work of the Spirit of God.

In the opening chapter of his letter to the Romans, Paul describes man’s natural position before God. Man naturally knows God. From nature (the cosmological and teleological arguments, so to speak) man knows that there is a God, what His nature is and that He is powerful. Contrary to Barth, Paul expressly states the fact of natural revelation, saying that what can be known about God is plain to men “because God has shown it to them.” However, this does not necessarily pave the way for philosophical efforts to demonstrate the existence of God. On the contrary, instead of treating man as a blank slate who needs to be shown that God exists, Paul paints a portrait of man as knowing God exists but not wanting Him to. The issue is not one of knowledge but of sin.

When I was a young man, I put a lot of effort into becoming an atheist. I was raised knowing Jesus, but had decided as a teenager that being a Christian was not very expedient. During my several year struggle to disbelieve, God on two occasions put me into situations where I was given questions I couldn’t answer. Both of these conversations were with Christians. One was with a street evangelist who cornered me in downtown Seattle, the other with a young man with whom I was friends. While I remember more the effect of my conversation with the evangelist than the words, I have never forgotten the conversation with my friend. Two of us were making the argument that it cannot be known whether the message of the Bible had really been preserved or not. Kindle simply responded, “Don’t you think God could protect His word?” While this is not exactly a scientific defense of the Bible, it is hypothetically an airtight case. If one were to presuppose the existence of God, especially as He is believed to be by Christians, then the answer is yes. The objection to this argument is not with the argument itself but with the presupposition. And while it had no effect, to my knowledge, on the other young atheist, Kindle’s argument stuck in my mind. Was it a philosophical defense of Christianity? Yes. If I was smarter could I have continued the argument? Of course. I believe it was the Spirit of God, and not Kindle’s argument, that stopped me midstream that day.

After returning to the faith, I found it increasingly difficult to believe in God. To remedy my situation, I read C.S. Lewis’ Mere Christianity. Lewis’ argument for the existence of God, as I remember it, was essentially the moral argument. We may not believe in moral absolutes, but wait until someone does something wrong to you! Lewis was nearly apostolic in his ministry to me. I was astounded by his ability to make the faith make sense. However, it must be asked whether Lewis was convincing me or reassuring me. I believe I was being reassured. Years of hearing about Jesus and praying and being prayed for were what made me believe. Lewis just helped to quiet my fears. It was a real ministry. However, when I offered the book to my fellow atheist friend, he read the first chapter and gave the book back. He didn’t accept Lewis’ foundational argument that there are universally accepted absolutes. There was no point for him in reading the rest of the book.

Paul writes,

“Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God by the folly of what we preach to save those who believe.”

Paul also tells us that “faith comes through hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.” A former youth worker I know once said in a Bible study, “If you decided to believe the gospel because someone argued you into it, sooner or later you are going to meet someone who argues you back out of it.”

When all is said and done, I believe that the study of philosophy is valuable to the Christian faith, and it can often be used by God to reassure or even convince someone of the Christian faith. However, I do not believe that the philosophical arguments for God are as effective as prayer and the Word of God, because philosophy is not binding, but when the Spirit of God applies the Word of God to a person’s heart, they cannot turn away.


Bibliography


Barth, Karl. The Epistle to the Romans, tr. Edwyn C. Hoskins, London: Oxford University Press, 1933.
Barth, Karl. “Evangelical Theology in the Nineteenth Century,” in The Humanity of God, Louisville, KY: John Knox Press, 1960.
Brunner, Emil, and Karl Barth. Natural Theology, Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2002.
Geisler, Norman, and Winfried Corduan. Philosophy of Religion, Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2003.
Lewis, C.S. Mere Christianity, New York, NY: MacMillan Company, 1952.