An Analysis of Dr. Corduan’s Essay on Philosophical Prolegomena
September 9, 2019
To Start a Conversation: A Call for Firm Foundations
As the 1970s were giving way to a new decade, the evangelical church found itself in a theological battle. This fight was for the reliability of God’s Word. It was in this climate that Dr. Corduan realized the necessity of calling “attention to the need for serious philosophical thinking by the theologian.”[1] It was with this goal that he issued his challenge for theologians to firmly establish their theological preconditions and presuppositions in good philosophy. Dr. Corduan proposed to set forth this philosophical study as a prerequisite to formal systematic theology. He identifies this “preparatory study laying down basic principles” as ‘prolegomena.’ Dr. Corduan further clarifies the definition of prolegomena, in its relation to evangelical systematic theology, by explaining that it “considers the philosophical background to understanding particular doctrines taught by special revelation.”[2]
The goal of this work was not to present a comprehensive or conclusive study of philosophical prolegomena. The author will have achieved his purpose “even if no one will be convinced of all of the specific points”[3] because “its major goal is to facilitate discussion on its central theme.”[4] In this book, Dr. Corduan has condensed a lifetime of study into a format that is accessible to beginning theologians but involved enough to garner critiques from opposing Ph.Ds. It may be due to his efforts to stay focused on the narrow subject, the nature of condensing such a deep subject into its most meaningful aspects, or differing presuppositions, but there are, at times, questions or concerns this reader has that Dr. Corduan fails to provide support or explanations for, and on one occasion, says too much. Despite a few unanswered questions and one theological disagreement, this book has helped this reader to begin to understand, at a philosophical level, the foundation of many long-held beliefs.
Conversation Started: A Success or Fit for the Ash Heap?
Dr. Corduan methodically builds his prolegomena of systematic theology by first defining his terms and designating the perspective by which one should view both prolegomena and theology. After eliminating non-biblical views on the nature of man, he proceeds to show how it is possible for man’s nature to interact with God. To establish this interaction, he draws connections between God’s revelation in history and the use of Thomistic Analogy, which allows man to “know something partially without having to concede not knowing it at all.”[5] After showing how God’s nature (at least to some extent) can be known by man, his work culminates with the regeneration of man’s will to God. His clearly defined framework allows the reader to know where he is in each step of this process and to move easily back and forth to review previous sections as needed.
This framework is supported by the many philosophers and theologians that Dr. Corduan references, everyone from Aquinas to Wittgenstein. The author makes clear from the beginning that he supports a Thomistic philosophy, and this is evident throughout the work. Depending on one’s presuppositions, this will either be a benefit or a detriment to the case that is made. This reader finds that when Dr. Corduan stays close to the angelic doctor, his case is stronger than when he tries to distance himself from Aquinas’s views. Dr. John Frame, a professor at Westminster Theological Seminary, disagrees. In his review of this work, he says “the only criticism of Thomas I could find in the book was to the effect that his view of human depravity was inadequate (p. 174), a significant point, to be sure, but not enough (in comparison with all the other points) to remove our suspicions that Corduan is a party-liner.”[6] Dr. Frame’s quarrel is not only with Aquinas, but seems to be with any position other than his own Reformed presuppositionalism. He concludes his review of Dr. Corduan’s work with “in my view, the concept of “prolegomena” is just as confused and dangerous in the Reformed context as it is in Corduan’s Thomism; it ought to be consigned to the ash heap.”[7] Such a strong reaction shows that Dr. Corduan is at least successful in his desire to “facilitate discussions” about philosophical prolegomena.
As described above, Handmaid to Theology reviews many of the philosophical preconditions one needs prior to formal systematic theology. Many of these topics are staples in philosophy regardless of the academic setting, such as the nature of man. Dr. Corduan’s ability to bring these topics together and present them in a way that can be understood as a collective should be applauded. However, one section in particular is the linchpin that allows this work to flow from “what is man” to man’s ultimate reconciliation with God. In this section, he utilizes E. L. Mascall’s work Existence and Analogy[8] to bridge the gap between the “mundane and the divine.”[9] To remove oneself from the failures of the univocal and equivocal language theories and to present a concept by which man can know and talk about aspects of the divine are critical to theology. For if mankind cannot speak of God, except in equivocal language, then nothing can really be communicated at all. If nothing can be effectively communicated, then the pursuit of God is a tragic waste of time. Dr. Corduan delivers his readers from this pit of despondency by making his case for a Thomistic analogy or an “analogy of attribution.”[10]
Overall, Dr. Corduan has presented an organized, well supported, and important case for the necessity of philosophy as a foundation on which theology should be built. As Dr. Frame proves, Dr. Corduan does not have universal support for his positions, but again the main issue is not that all points be accepted, but to create a starting point by which this conversation can proceed.
Mis-Communication: Logical Fallacy and Overstatement
In Dr. Frame’s critique of Handmaid to Theology he says that Dr. Corduan “cuts his argumentation to the bare bones, [and] frequently oversimplifies issues.”[11] It is obvious that this work is not intended to be a comprehensive “magnum opus” and therefore, should not be judged too harshly for some oversimplification. However, there are some areas in which additional information could prove beneficial, especially for an entry level student.
Once the definitions and perspectives are established in the first two chapters, the attention is turned to the nature of man. Dr. Corduan gives a brief history on the philosophy of man and an argument for the importance of this field of thought, specifically regarding a biblical view of man. Here, as he narrows the focus to a biblically accepted position on the nature of man, he explains that “a good way to clarify a positive point is to differentiate it from unacceptable views. Thus[,] the easiest way to come up with a philosophical view within a biblical perimeter may well be to note what is clearly out of bound.”[12] He then proceeds to exclude materialism, spiritualism, and strict dualism based on orthodox biblical doctrine. The issue that goes unaddressed is that this work of prolegomena is supposed to set the preconditions and presuppositions for systematic theology, but now it requires theology to justify the preconditions of the prolegomena. One could accuse the author of committing the fallacy of circular reasoning or begging the question. The more generous view would be that Dr. Corduan is speaking to Christians and, therefore, does not wish to distract from the main point of his work by having to detail these other theories. If so, the author could place a footnote for the reader to refer to Dr. Geisler’s Systematic Theology: Volume Three[13] for further study. This, however, still leaves the reader wondering if this is not a vicious hermeneutical circle—that the prolegomena change the theology, that change the prolegomena, that therefore change the theology, in infinitum. It may be that Dr. Corduan is comfortable with this hermeneutical circle or that he has adopted a “hermeneutical spiral”[14] view (that one can proceed from a bad presupposition to a good understanding). This cannot be known based on this one work, but here a footnote referencing Dr. Thomas Howe’s Objectivity in Biblical Interpretation[15] would assure the reader that there is an answer to this unaddressed concern.
Later in the chapter regarding the philosophical conception of man, Dr. Corduan discusses the “reconstituted Flew” problem concerning the post resurrection body. This was a particularly disappointing section for this reader. Hoping for an adequate answer regarding the question of “same matter resurrection,” the reader is instead met with; “few thinkers, if any, would demand identical molecular configuration prior to admitting substantial identity.”[16] Knowing that Jesus was raised in the same body, still bearing the marks of His crucifixion, this is an important subject to address from a Christian standpoint, not to mention those who use this issue as a reason to cause doubt concerning the resurrection. Dr. David Kyle Johnson raises this exact point in a lecture series called The Big Questions of Philosophy.[17] Dr. Johnson challenges his students as follows;
The notion that an afterlife can be accomplished by resurrecting the dead faces some serious objections. First of all, if your body preserves your personal identity, then whatever body is resurrected at the end of days would have to be the same body you had when you died. The problem is that your body will have long since decomposed and turned to dust. Even the atoms that made up your body have reentered the ecosystem. There’s only a limited amount of matter on earth, and it constantly goes through the cycle of life and death. Strictly speaking, at least some of the atoms that are in your body now were most likely atoms that belonged to some person in the past. In general, we all share so many atoms that, when it comes time for the resurrection, it will be impossible for everyone to be raised.[18]
Based on Dr. Corduan’s answer to the “reconstituted Flew” problem, it appears that he is not concerned about the material aspect of the resurrection, instead, only concerned about the form. He explains, “whatever matter the form resides in will take on the identity provided by the form. Thus two different bodies, if they are at different times united with the same soul, will be the same person.”[19] If this is, in fact, his belief and he is not concerned with material aspects of the resurrection, it would be better for him to end this section here, concluding with his own thoughts, rather than stating what others may or may not demand.
As previously stated, one may overlook some oversimplification due to the nature and intent of the work, but some minor references would leave the reader with somewhere to follow up with additional concerns or at least a comforting thought that answers are available. Outside of the hermeneutical circle situation, the logic of the arguments presented are well supported and followed. Dr. Frame’s harsh criticism may have more to do with his own avid Reformed presuppositionalism and less to do with any real deficiencies in Dr. Corduan’s work.
Having ‘The’ Talk: Disagreement over Theology
It is a bit surprising to see Dr. Frame being as harsh as he is when reviewing this work as Dr. Corduan’s final chapter supports the Reformed view of regeneration. Dr. Frame, in his critique, distinguishes his Reformed theology from Dr. Corduan’s Thomism, but this seems to be more of a disagreement between presuppositionalism and classical theology rather than moral philosophical and soteriological differences.
It is on this issue of regeneration that Dr. Corduan deviates from Aquinas, claiming that “this [Aquinas’s] point of view misses the severity of the corruption; once the will went awry, the spirit broke as well.”[20] It is here where the theology of this work goes ‘awry.’ The theory presented here concerning regeneration is that “the sequence of regeneration is the opposite from corruption. In the fall, man’s will affected the spirit. Now in the restoration, the spirit must first (logically if not temporally) be brought back to integrity, and then the rectification of the will can follow.”[21] He elaborates by stating, “man’s spirit is replaced by a new spirit . . . if the spirit is changed, the form is changed. But if the form is changed, the whole man is changed. Thus, next, man’s will is renewed. He can now exercise it freely toward God.”[22] The understanding is that God must change man’s spirit before man can exercise free will toward God. Consider this logically;
- If God changes man’s spirit outside of man’s free will toward God, there is no free will of man.
- God changes man’s spirit prior to free will toward God.
- Therefore, free will does not exist.
- If free will does not exist, man cannot act outside the will of God.
- “The fall occurred when man decided by his will to disobey God and serve himself.”[23] (This is man acting.)
- If man cannot act outside the will of God, and man acted, then God willed that action. In this case that act being that man disobeyed him.
- Therefore, It was God’s will that man disobey him.
- Man did disobey Him.
- Therefore, man’s will was in line with God’s will.
- If man’s will was in line with God’s will then there was no deformation of man’s spirit and no need for regeneration.
Dr. Corduan may argue that only pre-fall man and post-regeneration man can exercise free will, but this akin to saying “one can do as he pleases, as long as what he pleases agrees with me.” This is not an acceptable understanding of free will. One must choose; does man have the free will to choose God, which implies the choice to reject God, or does God choose?
This is not the place for a full discussion of Reformed theology, but suffice it to say that Dr. Corduan here wants to utilize man’s free will to understand the fall, but reject it when it comes to regeneration. This is the only significant theological disagreement this reader had with this work. It is necessary for one to learn from those with whom there are disagreements, and that is the case for this reader and this work.
The Conversation is Started: Now Include the Church
Much can be said for the value of Dr. Corduan’s work on philosophical prolegomena. This book was a great learning experience for this reader as much of what was discussed was new information. This is a topic that is not addressed in the church, yet it is needed in order to have a foundation for the beliefs in which the church says it believes. This reader is a Baptist and as such believes in “revealed religion.” The understanding of what this means has been so basic and underwhelming when compared to what was discussed in the two chapters on revelation. Even the way in which the average church member thinks about the nature and attributes of God can be proved at best confused and at worst heretical once one has read chapters seven, eight, and nine. An encouragement for the church to engage with this work should not be taken as a tacit approval of everything Dr. Corduan posits, but this book can raise awareness among believers regarding the lack of understanding in today’s congregations. If read and understood, it will help to firm up the foundations of the faith. Dr. Frame asks a rhetorical and disparaging question regarding this work, “for whom else could this book have been written?”[24] To use a supposed G. K. Chesterton quote, “Dear Sir, I am.”[25]
[1] Winfried Corduan, Handmaid to Theology: An Essay in Philosophical Prolegomena (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1981), 9.
[2] Ibid., 17.
[3] Ibid., 9.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Corduan, 110.
[6] John Frame, “Handmaid to Theology: An Essay in Philosophical Prolegomena.” The Westminster Theological Journal 45, no. 2 (Fall 1983): 442.
[7] Ibid., 448.
[8] E. L. Mascall, Existence and Analogy (London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1949), 97-121.
[9] Corduan, 109.
[10] Corduan, 110.
[11] Frame, 443.
[12] Corduan, 44.
[13] Norman Geisler, Systematic Theology, vol. 3, Sin Salvation (Minneapolis: Bethany House, 2004).
[14] Thomas Howe, Objectivity in Biblical Interpretation (2015), 144.
[15] Ibid.
[16] Corduan, 53.
[17] David K. Johnson, “Are Persons Just Bodies?,” lecture 21, The Big Questions of Philosophy, Audio, The Great Courses, (Chantilly, VA: The Teaching Company, 2016).
[18] Ibid.
[19] Corduan, 53.
[20] Corduan, 174.
[21] Ibid., 175.
[22] Ibid., 176.
[23] Corduan, 173.
[24] Frame, 443.
[25] “What’s Wrong with the World?,” The Society of Gilbert Keith Chesterton, April 29, 2012, accessed September 9, 2019, https://www.chesterton.org/wrong-with-world/