BIBLICAL RELIGION/PHILOSOPHY:

Reflections

by

Richard T. Nolan, Ph.D.

       This text is a 2001 revision of a chapter in the author’s 1973 New York University doctoral dissertation.

       References to Dr. Cherbonnier’s writings may be consulted within the Cherbonnier subsite (see home page).

OUTLINE

INTRODUCTION

BIBLICAL RELIGION AS AN ALTERNATIVE

An Orientation to the Biblical View of Reality
An Orientation to the Perennial/Mystical View of Ultimate Reality

THE METHOD

The Bible as Philosophy
A Common Origin

THE NATURE OF GOD

A Unique Being
The Anthropomorphic Challenge
Yahweh and the New Testament
God is Personal
A Clarification of God's Nature
A God of Moral Judgment and Historical Intervention
Mystical versus Biblical
The Trinity
Transcendence and Immanence
God and Language
Other Qualities
Source of Absolute Value Additional Qualities
Summary of the Biblical God's Nature
Some Implications for Worship

STATUS OF THE EVERYDAY WORLD

Finite Reality
Creation
The Order of Existence
The Nature of History

HUMAN NATURE

Humanity in the Bible
The Human Soul
Human Freedom and Grace
Human Destiny

RELIGIOUS KNOWLEDGE

Understanding God's Purpose
Rational and Emotional Understanding
Drawing Judgment
Knowledge Means Action
The Word
Interpreting the Word

CONSEQUENCES FOR LIVING

Human Responsibility
Integrating Life Forces
Persons in Relation
The Problem of Sin
The Aim of Biblical Philosophy

INTRODUCTION

BIBLICAL RELIGION AS AN ALTERNATIVE

An Orientation to the Biblical View of Reality

       With the assumption that reality is found exclusively in the vast, complex, and wondrous natural order, biblical religion interprets God as a personal agent, a Someone instead of a something or a philosophic abstraction. Contrary to the "super-natural" or "non-physical" dimension of mystical religion,¹ biblical religion is grounded in the physical (i.e., all that constitutes the visible and invisible) with a Creator God who acts.

       Metaphysical positions that view total reality within the natural order are versions of "naturalism." When a personal God is included, "theistic naturalism" further designates the interpretation.

       1. See D.V. Steere, "Mysticism," in Halverson and Cohen, A Handbook of Christian Theology (Nashville: Abingdon, 1958), pp. 236-38; and J. R. Price, "Mysticism," in Musser and Price, A New Handbook of Christian Theology (Nashville, Abingdon, 1992), pp. 318-20. Also, see the subsite The Perennial Philosophy.

One can interpret the Bible's general view of reality as a form of naturalism. Broadly conceived, naturalism uses the various methods of science, evidence, and reason to understand a natural universe that includes humanity and history. Usually, the various versions of naturalism do not include God; in fact, God in a biblical sense is usually excluded a priori. Nonetheless, certain scholars have proposed a number of interpretations of God (not always personal in a biblical sense) that focus on empirical methods.² Given the Bible's general monistic view, "theistic naturalism" may be a fair, though unusual, category.³ The basic tenets of theistic naturalism (which appears to be the basic biblical position) are: (1) the created order [the universe, nature (in the broadest sense), whatever constitutes the visible and invisible] is the sum total of reality; (2) there is no supernatural, non-natural, non-physical realm beyond or within nature; (3) physical reality may consists of many different types or levels of natural realities; (4) if human beings have the adequate instruments, records, and methods, most phenomena can be understood in terms of natural processes; and (5) the Sovereign Creator is "compatible" (a deliberately imprecise category) with his creation. Broadly conceived, naturalism uses scientific methods, empirical evidence (including historical information), and reason to understand nature. Schools of thought emerge in naturalism as well as in all other metaphysical positions; thus, we encounter "mechanistic naturalism," "dialectical materialism," and "humanistic naturalism" as non-theistic versions.⁴

       This is not to suggest the existence of a tidy philosophical or doctrinal packaging in the Bible, but some elemental beliefs that have emerged as dominant themes,

       (2)See Robert W. Bretall, ed., The Empirical Theology of Henry Nelson Wieman (New York: Macmillan, 1963), Randolph C. Miller, ed., Empirical Theology: A Handbook (Birmingham, Alabama: Religious Education Press, 1992), and Peter Forest, God Without The Supernatural: A Defense of Scientific Theism (Ithaca: Cornell, 1996).

       (3)"Theistic naturalism" is not a widespread classification. However, it is discussed and indexed as "theistic naturalism" or "naturalistic theism" in the following publications: David Ray Griffin, Religion and Scientific Naturalism: Overcoming the Conflicts (Albany, N.Y.: SUNY, 2000);  David Ray Griffin, Reinchantment Without Supernaturalism: A Process Philosophy of Religion (Ithaca and London: Cornell, 2001); Randolph C. Miller, The American Spirit In Theology (Philadelphia: United Church Press, 1974); Randolph C. Miller, ed., Theologies of Religious Education (Alabama: Religious Education Press, 1995); Harold H. Titus, Living Issues in Philosophy (New York: American Book Co., 1946); and, Henry N. Wieman and Bernard E. Meland, American Philosophies and Religions (New York: Willett, Clark & Co., 1936). The term is also found in “Naturalism” in the Encyclopaedia Britannica (2001 Deluxe Edition CD and at www.britannica.com).
       “Theological naturalism” is defined as “the view that a rational conception of God is not only consistent with, but an integral part of, the natural world” in the entry “Philosophy of Religion” in A. Pablo Iannone, Dictionary of World Philosophy (London and New York: Routledge, 2001), p. 435.
       Additionally, similar classifications may be found within papers of the Conference on Naturalism, Theism, and the Scientific Enterprise, University of Texas, 1997) at
http://www.leaderu.com/offices/koons/menus/conference.html

       (4) See the chapter "Naturalism" in Titus, Smith, and Nolan, Living Issues In Philosophy, 9th ed.
(Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1995), pp. 248ff. and the entry “Naturalism” in A. P. Iannone, Dictionary of World Philosophy (London and New York: Routledge, 2001).

reflecting "the thematic wholeness of Hebrew Scripture."⁵ A comment on the unity of God in Scripture is appropriate to bear in mind.

There is thus throughout the Bible a deep unity underlying all its various insights into the character and purpose of God. These various insights represent partial truths, and the differences between them must not be minimized. There is development, or perhaps we should say deepening, in the various conceptions of God at difference stages of Hebrew history. ... But the recognition of differences in viewpoint should not be allowed to obscure from our eyes the essential unity of the biblical conception of God. Throughout the biblical records it is the same God to whom testimony points, even though in places the testimony may be expressed in primitive (in light of later insight) distorted ways; this God is the God whose final and clearest revelation is seen in Jesus Christ."⁶

An Orientation to the Perennial⁷/Mystical View of Ultimate Reality

       With the assumption that ultimate reality is the non-physical (wholly other than whatever constitutes the visible and invisible of the created order), perennial/mystical

       (5)Paul R. House, Old Testament Theology (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity, 1998), 57. In his Old Testament Survey (Nashville, Tenn.: Broadman, 1992) Prof. House, mindful of biblical diversity, attempts to chart some elements that unify the Old Testament, what he calls on page 22 "great Bible themes." Daniel P. Fuller is another contemporary biblical scholar who proposes a similar approach in his The Unity of the Bible (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1992).

       (6)Alan Richardson, "God" in A Theological Word Book of the Bible (New York, Macmillan, 1960), p. 90.

       (7) Other than works cited in footnotes below, essays on "Perennial Philosophy" may be found in: A. Huxley, "Introduction" in The Song of God: Bhagavad-Gita (New York: Mentor, 1954); N. Smart, "Perennial Philosophy" in The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Theology, ed. A. Richardson and J. Bowden (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1983), pp. 439ff. The subsite “The Perennial Philosophy” is an extended essay on the topic with links and additional bibliographical items.

worldviews interpret ultimate reality as non-personal, analogically personal, or suprapersonal "Oneness," "Pure Spirituality," "Godness Beyond God," "Undifferentiated Unity" and similar categories. The most philosophic forms of Asian religions choose such abstractions, while some expressions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam have incorporated mystical traits. With Cherbonnier, we propose that the inclusion of such mystical presuppositions misinterprets religions based on the Bible.

       One of the main challenges in the comparison of any two philosophical systems is to distinguish incompatible interpretations of common issues. Most systems are concerned with similar topics, such as the nature of reality (metaphysics), the nature of knowledge (epistemology), and the nature of value (axiology). It is in approaching such issues and giving them a definitive interpretation that each philosophy assumes its own ground rules and framework.

       In the case of classical mysticism (or "perennial philosophy"), the approach is based on a funda-mental premise: the unchanging, most universal is the most real. On this cornerstone, mystical/ perennial philosophers typically adopt a type of hierarchical structure in which every component of reality is grouped in ascending levels, until only one major category remains: being/non-being.⁸ Beyond the natural order is pure, non-physical Otherness, the most inclusive reality, an unchanging, Undifferentiated Unity. The changing natural world is less real, even unreal, and less significant than Being itself; the Platonic "Forms" serve as a type of blueprint for the vast multiplicity of objects and ideas that populate the everyday human world. It is possible to say, however, that things of the natural order are only an illusion, a seeming-to-be. What is really real is being (or non-being) - the One or Oneness, the Absolute, Pure Spirituality, the Non-physical: unconscious, unchanging, immobile Reality "beyond" the actuality of the universe. Its nature is described only by negative characteristics: it cannot be in ontological relation to any object external to itself; it is Wholly Other⁹ than the visible or invisible of the created order. Its sole function is to be; it is without cause, dependence, or purpose. From this perspective are drawn all forms of perennial philosophy. According to Cherbonnier, its influence on philosophical and religious thought has been overwhelming. From the age of Athenian philosophy until the present day, this paradigm or worldview has colored and shaped an enormous number of attitudes toward the nature of reality, including much Christian theology. In Huxley's words:

PHILOSOPHIA PERENNIS - the phrase was coined by Leibniz; but the thing--the metaphysic that recognizes a divine Reality substantial to the world of things and lives and minds; the psychology that finds in the soul something similar to, or even identical with, divine Reality; the ethic that places man's final end in the

       (8)"Being" and "Non-Being" are often used synonymously, paradoxically, and with great imprecision by mystical/perennial philosophers. At times, "being" seems to refer to fundamental reality in the created order and "non-being" to the ultimate reality beyond being. At other times, both categories refer to the Oneness "beyond" the created order. The inconsistent uses are not profound; they are merely inconsistent uses!

       (9) The terms italicized in this and the preceding sentence One, Oneness, Absolute, Pure Spirituality, the Non-Physical, and Wholly Other are synonymous and are used interchangeably throughout the text. Also equivalents are "Undifferentiated Unity," "Godness Beyond God," "Non-Being," and others, as identified with "Oneness."

knowledge of the immanent and transcendent Ground of all being--the thing is immemorial and universal. Rudiments of Perennial Philosophy may be found among the traditional lore of primitive peoples in every region of the world, and in its fully developed forms it has a place in every one of the higher religions.¹⁰

       The confusion inherent in comparing perennial philosophy with an incompatible approach is caused by the virtual monopoly enjoyed by perennial philosophy. It is almost a Sacred Tradition to regard perennial views as the norm, to use them as a measuring stick to be placed against rival claims, to accept them as being true without considering other possibilities, to trivialize other worldviews as unsophisticated, indeed to "do" all theology and religious studies within some sort of mystical context. To conclude in this manner, however, is to run the risk of being totally partisan. There is no patented solution to the question of reality. Perennial philosophy offers some powerful arguments to support its position, but it is possible to offer equally logical and persuasive arguments from an entirely different perspective. It falls then to critical philosophers to uphold their responsibility, to weigh the ideas presented to them on their own merits and not to prejudge any issue. To make this possible, it is our purpose here to clarify an alternative approach to the question of reality, to outline a second philosophical-religious system in contrast to mystical ones. This we refer to as "biblical philosophy" or "biblical religion." ("Abrahamic religion" or "Hebraic religion" are also possibilities.)

THE METHOD

The Bible as Philosophy

       (10) Aldous Huxley, The Perennial Philosophy (London: Chattos and Windus, 1946), p. 1.

       Like perennial philosophy, the biblical approach is concerned with understanding the truth about reality. However, whereas perennialism rests on the foundation of its hierarchy and its conclusion that existence is either a duality or non-physical monism, the biblical system draws on the worldview inherent in the Bible. We consider biblical writings as containing by implication as valid and logical a philosophy as the works of the Greek thinkers.¹¹ This in itself is a radical concept, radical in the sense that it requires an evaluation of the biblical text not only as it speaks to human religious or emotional sensitivity, but also as having something to say to human reason. Already the temptation is to restrict the Bible as a philosophical work by placing it into the category of a "purely religious" (emotional, poetic) document; the almost immediate reaction is to consider the Bible as grounded in unreasonable faith, a work of mindless hearts and naive faith. Consequently, mystical authors become champions of the function of the mind. This is the first prejudice to overcome. The Bible is one of the great religious texts in history; as such, its presuppositions and many of its conclusions must find acceptance or rejection on the basis of human faith, but reasonable, informed faith. To restrict the Bible to a single (emotional) approach is to ignore a vast por-tion of its philosophical significance. It is our contention that, regarding core beliefs, the Bible contains a very rational and consistent thought system which is equal or even superior to any other philosophy or worldview. In words commenting upon the viability of a unique biblical philosophy, Cherbonnier has written:

...the way to preserve the uniqueness of the Bible is not to deny its reasonableness. Such a denial merely absolves Christianity's competitors of the responsibility for philosophically substantiating their own gods as against the God of the Bible. The way to preserve the uniqueness of the Bible is precisely to demonstrate its superior reasonableness. Not, however, by urging that it agrees with Plato or Aristotle, but by showing that at points of divergence between their conceptions of the divine and the Lord of Hosts, it is the latter who holds the philosophical advantage.¹²

       Biblical philosophy concerns not only the nature of God as the focal point of reality, but essential, core interpretations of human freedom, the finite world, knowledge, and the whole network of morality as a consequence for living. What biblical philosophers ask is that their ideas be given fair trial, that their views be considered with the same seriousness as the assertions made by perennial thinkers. If this can be done, much of the confusion between the two systems can be eliminated, and the result will be that critics will have not one alternative, but a choice of two, upon one of which they can base a faith.

A Common Origin

       Both the mystical and biblical views share a common origin. They each stand in the finite world looking toward the mystery of ultimate reality. If those elements in

(11) Cherbonnier. "Is There A Biblical Metaphysic," Theology Today, XV, No. 4 (1959), pp. 454-456.

(12) Cherbonnier, "Jerusalem and Athens," Anglican Theological Review, XXXVI (October, 1954), pp. 252f.

both systems that can be labeled as unquestionable, individual revelations of truth (such as ecstatic and revelatory moments) are removed, then it can be stated that both approaches share human reason as a vital ingredient. The statements they make, therefore, must be judged on the criteria of their logic and consistency. In its broadest application, this can be done by asking the simple questions, "Does that make sense?", "Is this presupposition persuasive?" or "If I accept this as being true, what follows from it?" A good example of this process is the initial question of logical priority. In either system, the embryonic stage of development originates in the conviction that the perceived world does not represent all of reality. It makes sense to both the perennial and biblical thinker that some truth is found distinct from the observable world. Both approaches begin, therefore, with a given set of variables: the nature of the world and human existence within the limitations of time and space.

       It is from this basis that perennial thought accepts the principle of a duality. Its hierarchy begins with the assumption that the multiple objects of this world are at best only the clay models of higher reality beyond, that their design and existence depend on the non-physical. From this line of reasoning, the pyramid of reality is constructed until it derives the nature of being, beyond the pyramid, as ultimate reality. This implies that there can be only one true reality and that all else was simply illusion, somehow "less real," or at least less significant. The finite realm, therefore, was cut off from the non-physical Real by definition; it is impossible for any second reality to co-exist equally with the Real since it (the Real) must contain all of reality in one perfect unity.

       With this a type of perspective in mind, one can begin again with the condition of the world as only a given set of variables, something to be observed, and consider the result if a different approach were taken. What, for example, would be the result of assuming that the hierarchy did not exist, that the tangible objects of the natural world were really real, and not illusory or less real, that whatever serves as ultimate reality was not the receptacle of existence but its personal architect? What if a "theistic naturalism" is the case? These questions begin to mark the differences between perennial and biblical thought.¹³

(13) See also T. Boman, Hebrew Thought Compared With Greek (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960); E. Hatch, The Influence of Greek Ideas on Christianity (New York: Harper, 1957); E. Hatch, The Influence of Greek Ideas and Usages Upon the Christian Church (Hendrickson, 1996); W. H. V. Reade, A Christian Challenge To Philosophy (London: SPCK, 1951); C. Tresmontant, A Study of Hebrew Thought (New York: Desclee, 1960); G. E. Wright, The Old Testament and Theology (New York, Harper and Row, 1969).