A CRITIQUE OF FRANCIS SCHAEFFER 2
A CRITIQUE OF FRANCIS SCHAEFFER 2
by D.R.Trethewie
Reforming and Congregational Church East Geelong.
Copyright © 1999.
Previous editions, 1976 and 1978.
자료출처 http://members.tripod.com/quick_geelong/church/schaeffer.html
Education and Culture are Not Religious Media
Some further remarks are in order, to clarify the point at issue, raised in the previous section. The discussion above really involves the very heart of the conflict we have with Kuyperianism. I believe that the various educational and cultural disciplines have the task of describing and portraying things as they are. There is some liberty for the fancy, but even in the exercise of this, the object aimed at should be an accurate representation of what is, even though it might be metaphoric or symbolic, or the production of form in art, or harmony in music in a manner which is pleasing aesthetically, according to the constitution of man's nature. A case can be made for art to portray unpleasant aspects of reality also.
Probably these contentions would be disputed. However, the following remarks have been most helpful to me in providing some insight into these matters: "The ignorant stonecutter, looking at some model of classic beauty from a master's chisel, may imagine that surely he could make a statue like that, so utterly free from exaggeration and point, so exactly like a real man or woman.....….He dreams not that the harmony and truth to nature, the absence of exaggeration, and the softened unity and propriety of the statue are just the qualities which it is most difficult to produce......…Thus, also, to draw an imaginary man, like nature in his feelings and his conduct, is the hardest task of literary genius, although the picture, when finished, may seem so simple and easy." Discussions, Volume 2, by Robert Dabney, page 159. Dabney highlights both the goal of natural representation, and the difficulty of achieving it.
God gave man dominion over the earth, and thus man has some autonomy, according to the light of nature, in this realm, contrary to Kuyperianism. Despite the herd of impostors, there have been non-Christians who have produced a correct image of human life and the universe, in science, literature, art and music. At times they may even have made reference to God, and man's misery unreconciled to God. This because we may ascend to a consideration of God by reflecting upon earthly matters. However, these things are quite distinct from the way of reconciliation, which is the prerogative alone of the preaching of God's Word revealed.
Thus education and cultural pursuits are not vehicles for the communication of some religious message, either humanist or Christian. Certainly humanists have peddled their ideas through education and cultural forms, as Schaeffer has shown. But this is to abuse both education and culture. Christians should not ape humanists, as Kuyperians would do, at their own game, and try to push a Christian message through the same media.
Politics
The relation of Christians to politics is raised by the concept of cultural involvement. Kuyper was consistent with his scheme and became Prime Minister of Holland. We don't deny that Christians should consider political principles and issues seasonably. On occasion Christians may be called to support one of contending parties, when a matter of major import arises. Further we may have to suffer meekly at the hands of governments, for our faith. The legitimacy of heathen governments, and our subordination to them for conscience sake, is a clear New Testament doctrine. And we are to pray for those in authority.
However when all is said and done there is great wisdom in the following remarks of John Newton, "For my part, I have no temptation to turn politician, and much less to inflame a party in these times………I attempt to turn my people's eyes from instruments to God. I am continually attempting to show them how far they are from knowing either the matter of fact, or the matter of right. I inculcate our great privileges in this country....." Out of the Depths, page 143, Moody. And, "If a Christian be placed in a public sphere of action, he should undoubtedly be faithful to his calling, and endeavour by all lawful methods to transmit our privileges to posterity.........(otherwise) There are enough people to make a noise about political matters, who do not know how to employ their time to better purpose. Our Lord's kingdom is not of this world; and most of his people may do their country much more essential service by pleading for it in prayer, than by finding fault with things which they have no power to alter." Letters, page 64-65, Banner of Truth, 1965. This runs counter to the spirit of Kuyperianism. Let us remind ourselves that we are "strangers and pilgrims on the earth." Hebrews 11:13.
APPENDIX I - PRESUPPOSITIONS
Schaeffer defines the word presupposition in his glossary as: "A belief or theory which is assumed before the next step in logic is developed. Such a prior postulate often consciously or unconsciously affects the way a person subsequently reasons." The God Who is There, page 177.
There can be little objection to this definition as it stands. However when we examine Schaeffer's usage of the term, and Cornelius Van Til's, Schaeffer's presumed source of the principle, it is clear that there is confusion, both with respect to its derivation and application.
Schaeffer mentions as examples of the principle: 1. The law of contradiction, "If you have A it is not non-A". The God Who is There, page 13. And, 2. The law of cause. Ibid. p.19. He would call these two, presuppositions of men in general before the dates he stated (see above, in this paper on page 10), and of Christians still since those times.
Confusion results because the two examples, which Schaeffer provides as presuppositions, are, according to a strict philosophical definition, simple first truths or laws of reason, in a word axioms. As such they should not be included with theories, as they are, in the looser more comprehensive definition from his glossary. Theories are not simple first truths they are more elaborate ideas, voluntarily articulated from discursive reasoning, they are not fixed involuntary laws of thought like axioms. Whereas axiomatic principles are self-evident truths, it remains a question whether theories are true or not.
It is quite legitimate to acknowledge that axiomatic laws of thought are applied a priori in reasoning. It is completely incorrect to suggest that it is equally legitimate to apply theories in the same way, and that all human reasoning is bound to do this, which is a cornerstone of modern Kuyperianism, and humanism for that matter.
Schaeffer remarks of men, who he says held the two axioms he notices, i.e. the law of contradiction and the law of cause, before what he calls 'the tremendous shift' in thought, that they held these beliefs "not for any adequate reason but because man romantically acted upon" them. Ibid. page 19. He does this to hold up the ridiculous Kuyperian principle that human reason, outside the confines of Kuyperianism, cannot and never has functioned validly. But these axioms, as unchangeable laws of thought were legitimately held, and still are, by many who are not Christian. They are not something which men can be take or leave, as Schaeffer suggests, when he says they were held 'romantically' and without 'adequate reason'. In passing it can be noticed that Van Til, for various reasons (sic), rejects the law of contradiction.
The nonsense which follows the attempted denial of these plain teachings of consciousness in fact demonstrates their truth. Hegel (as above), and Schelling and Fichte, his forerunners, attempted their denial. Schelling's theory was, "…....….there exists no distinction of subject and object - no contrast of knowledge and existence; all difference is lost in absolute indifference - all plurality in absolute unity. The intuition itself, reason and the absolute are identical." Writings of Thornwell, Volume 3, page 150. Thornwell comments, "But consistency here is evidently maintained at the sacrifice of the possibility of thought." Ibid. In support of his comment, Thornwell quotes Fichte, who said, "I know absolutely nothing of any existence, not even my own; I, myself, know nothing, and am nothing. Images there are - they constitute all that apparently exists......I, myself, am one of these images; nay I am not even thus much, but only a confused image of images." Ibid. Thus men cannot escape the first truths of reason, these principles are a part of their nature. If they deny them. then they are lost in confusion.
It is only fair to say that Schaeffer has discussed with some sensitivity the difficulties men have Got into in denying these principles. But he has not taught, as he should have, that these principles are unchangeable laws of thought, inherent in man's rational faculty. Schaeffer's failure to see them as a part of man's nature has also led him, as indicated earlier in this paper, to overestimate the readiness of ordinary men to give up these doctrines. Really, the nonsense of Schelling, Fichte and Hegel is fairly easily seen.
A final point to be made here against both Schaeffer and Van Til, is that doctrines held to tenaciously by men which contradict sound reason or the truths of scripture, should be called prejudices and not presuppositions, because: 1. Prejudice implies an abuse of reason which the bland term presupposition does not, and that men might know better. And, 2. All men hold inescapably, the same laws of thought in common, whether they, including Kuyperians, will recognise this or not.
Schaeffer and Van Til are therefore quite out of touch on this matter of presuppositions, which is so much a feature of their systems. Consequently, Schaeffer's exhortation, "so now for us, more than ever before, a presuppositional apologetic is imperative", The God Who is There, page 14, should be disregarded.
APPENDIX II - FRANCIS BACON
Schaeffer's reference to Francis Bacon is interesting. Bacon is of importance to our position, since he is a principal forerunner of the Scottish Common Sense School. I believe that Schaeffer has misrepresented him. Schaeffer makes the following quotation from Bacon's Novum Organum: "Man by the Fall fell at the same time from his state of innocence and from his dominion over nature. Both of these losses, however can even in this life be in some part repaired; the former by religion and faith, the latter by the arts and the sciences." Escape from Reason, page 31. Schaeffer interprets this to mean, "Therefore science as science (and art as art) was understood to be, in the best sense, a religious activity. Notice in the quotation the fact that Francis Bacon did not see science as autonomous, for it was placed within the revelation of the scriptures at the point of the Fall." Ibid.
Schaeffer's interpretation is unjustified. Even in the quotation given, Bacon has distinguished religious activity from the arts and the sciences; so Schaeffer has insufficient ground to say that Bacon calls the arts and sciences 'religious activities'. We are thankful that Bacon acknowledges the truth of scripture, but it is equally clear that Bacon held to the system that Schaeffer opposes. For example, the nature-grace distinction is asserted by him. Thus Bacon commended, in James I of England, "a rare conjunction, as well of divine and sacred literature, as of profane and human." The Advancement of Learning, page 5, Oxford, 1974, (emphases mine). Also Bacon affirms the cosmological proof of God's existence, Ibid., page 11, and the legitimacy of natural theology, which he also calls 'divine philosophy', Ibid., pages 103-105. Kuyperianism, to which Schaeffer adheres, of course repudiates all this.
Van Til is aware that Bacon's doctrine, which we would style orthodox, is opposed to Kuyperianism: "So, for instance, Francis Bacon, whose sole interest was to make man king of the universe by means of science, nevertheless seeks for 'divine assistance' and prays with confidence 'to God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost' for help in his God-defying project." The Great Debate Today, by Cornelius Van Til, page 188, Presbyterian and Reformed, 1970. Van Til's remarks are an outrageous misrepresentation of Bacon, even though his rejection of Bacon is consistent with his Kuyperianism.
A just estimate of Bacon is contained in the following: "The question of (the existence of) a personal God might well be suspended upon the results, in science, to which its (i.e. science's) method of investigation has led. Bacon expounded the law (of Inductive Method, in the Novum Organum), and since Bacon what has not been accomplished? There is not a conquest in the world of matter or of mind which has not been won by the spirit of the inductive philosophy. It has explored every nook and corner of nature; it has trusted to nothing but its eyes and ears, and those eternal laws of thought which constitute the forms of knowledge. It has found order, law, a plan; it has discovered design, the operations of intelligence and will, and penetrated beyond nature to nature's God, as the author and finisher of all. It has seen and known." Writings of Thornwell, Volume 1, page 502. We are back to common sense and away from the vagaries of Kuyperianism.
SUMMARY
Gospel truth is corrupted first by accommodating the statement of its doctrines to the popular human philosophy. Schaeffer, a Kuyperian, advocates this procedure, contrary to scripture, which says we should teach 'not in the words which mans wisdom teaches'. He sees the difference between the Dutch and British/American Reformed theologians, preferring the former. His link with that school is Van Til. Differences are evident between the two however. Both equivocate over whether there is common ground with non-Christians. His history of philosophy, particularly of existentialism affecting modern culture, is interesting. He is concerned that we communicate the gospel to all people, and that faith be based on objective truth. However, there is more to philosophy than he indicates, and we object to his asserting scripture truth in human dialectical forms. The Bible is not the primary source of his method, his personal historical analysis is. We question his view of Hegel's importance. The Word preached in the old style still cuts through man's foolishness. The Word does not need sharpening with human philosophy. Ministers are Christ's ambassadors, and cannot change the statement of His message. Schaeffer doesn't give scripture proof for his method. Sin is the cause of evil philosophy, not vice versa, and scripture thoroughly notices the former. Schaeffer advocates a pre-evangelism, relegating the cross to second place, when it used to be the spearhead of evangelism. From scripture we argue that Christ crucified still holds pride of place in the Christian message. If non-Christians are intellectually incompetent, as Schaeffer and Van Til assert, how can they understand anything preached to them? If non-Christian philosophy is wrong, why use it to sharpen the gospel? Schaeffer talks of a tension in modern man, which he would use to determine gospel application. We prefer scripture's analysis of man's condition. Scepticism and wickedness have been present before, and the old preaching coped to the glory of God. Kuyperians, including Schaeffer, emphasise cultural involvement and obscure the heavenly-earthly distinction, tending to give each sphere equal priority, contrary to scripture. Calvin is with us. There are two tables of the law, man has a chief and a lesser end in accord with this. A separate Christian culture sounds monastic. Non-Christians possess secular skills; this is recognised by Calvin. Genius is required for real success in cultural pursuits, thus limiting these to a few, in terms of public impact, but not precluding a moderate recreational use by those not possessed of genius. Conservative evangelicalism rejects the theatre; this is not clear in Schaeffer. The evil associated with modern philosophy should not be flattered. Schaeffer talks of merging educational disciplines, as humanists do. Educational, cultural and religious disciplines have different functions and should be distinguished. Education and culture are not vehicles for a religious message. In politics Christians should consider the difficulty of finding the facts, and of knowing what is right. We do better to acknowledge God who rules over all, and to pray for our country.
by D.R.Trethewie
Reforming and Congregational Church East Geelong.
Copyright © 1999.
Previous editions, 1976 and 1978.
자료출처 http://members.tripod.com/quick_geelong/church/schaeffer.html
Education and Culture are Not Religious Media
Some further remarks are in order, to clarify the point at issue, raised in the previous section. The discussion above really involves the very heart of the conflict we have with Kuyperianism. I believe that the various educational and cultural disciplines have the task of describing and portraying things as they are. There is some liberty for the fancy, but even in the exercise of this, the object aimed at should be an accurate representation of what is, even though it might be metaphoric or symbolic, or the production of form in art, or harmony in music in a manner which is pleasing aesthetically, according to the constitution of man's nature. A case can be made for art to portray unpleasant aspects of reality also.
Probably these contentions would be disputed. However, the following remarks have been most helpful to me in providing some insight into these matters: "The ignorant stonecutter, looking at some model of classic beauty from a master's chisel, may imagine that surely he could make a statue like that, so utterly free from exaggeration and point, so exactly like a real man or woman.....….He dreams not that the harmony and truth to nature, the absence of exaggeration, and the softened unity and propriety of the statue are just the qualities which it is most difficult to produce......…Thus, also, to draw an imaginary man, like nature in his feelings and his conduct, is the hardest task of literary genius, although the picture, when finished, may seem so simple and easy." Discussions, Volume 2, by Robert Dabney, page 159. Dabney highlights both the goal of natural representation, and the difficulty of achieving it.
God gave man dominion over the earth, and thus man has some autonomy, according to the light of nature, in this realm, contrary to Kuyperianism. Despite the herd of impostors, there have been non-Christians who have produced a correct image of human life and the universe, in science, literature, art and music. At times they may even have made reference to God, and man's misery unreconciled to God. This because we may ascend to a consideration of God by reflecting upon earthly matters. However, these things are quite distinct from the way of reconciliation, which is the prerogative alone of the preaching of God's Word revealed.
Thus education and cultural pursuits are not vehicles for the communication of some religious message, either humanist or Christian. Certainly humanists have peddled their ideas through education and cultural forms, as Schaeffer has shown. But this is to abuse both education and culture. Christians should not ape humanists, as Kuyperians would do, at their own game, and try to push a Christian message through the same media.
Politics
The relation of Christians to politics is raised by the concept of cultural involvement. Kuyper was consistent with his scheme and became Prime Minister of Holland. We don't deny that Christians should consider political principles and issues seasonably. On occasion Christians may be called to support one of contending parties, when a matter of major import arises. Further we may have to suffer meekly at the hands of governments, for our faith. The legitimacy of heathen governments, and our subordination to them for conscience sake, is a clear New Testament doctrine. And we are to pray for those in authority.
However when all is said and done there is great wisdom in the following remarks of John Newton, "For my part, I have no temptation to turn politician, and much less to inflame a party in these times………I attempt to turn my people's eyes from instruments to God. I am continually attempting to show them how far they are from knowing either the matter of fact, or the matter of right. I inculcate our great privileges in this country....." Out of the Depths, page 143, Moody. And, "If a Christian be placed in a public sphere of action, he should undoubtedly be faithful to his calling, and endeavour by all lawful methods to transmit our privileges to posterity.........(otherwise) There are enough people to make a noise about political matters, who do not know how to employ their time to better purpose. Our Lord's kingdom is not of this world; and most of his people may do their country much more essential service by pleading for it in prayer, than by finding fault with things which they have no power to alter." Letters, page 64-65, Banner of Truth, 1965. This runs counter to the spirit of Kuyperianism. Let us remind ourselves that we are "strangers and pilgrims on the earth." Hebrews 11:13.
APPENDIX I - PRESUPPOSITIONS
Schaeffer defines the word presupposition in his glossary as: "A belief or theory which is assumed before the next step in logic is developed. Such a prior postulate often consciously or unconsciously affects the way a person subsequently reasons." The God Who is There, page 177.
There can be little objection to this definition as it stands. However when we examine Schaeffer's usage of the term, and Cornelius Van Til's, Schaeffer's presumed source of the principle, it is clear that there is confusion, both with respect to its derivation and application.
Schaeffer mentions as examples of the principle: 1. The law of contradiction, "If you have A it is not non-A". The God Who is There, page 13. And, 2. The law of cause. Ibid. p.19. He would call these two, presuppositions of men in general before the dates he stated (see above, in this paper on page 10), and of Christians still since those times.
Confusion results because the two examples, which Schaeffer provides as presuppositions, are, according to a strict philosophical definition, simple first truths or laws of reason, in a word axioms. As such they should not be included with theories, as they are, in the looser more comprehensive definition from his glossary. Theories are not simple first truths they are more elaborate ideas, voluntarily articulated from discursive reasoning, they are not fixed involuntary laws of thought like axioms. Whereas axiomatic principles are self-evident truths, it remains a question whether theories are true or not.
It is quite legitimate to acknowledge that axiomatic laws of thought are applied a priori in reasoning. It is completely incorrect to suggest that it is equally legitimate to apply theories in the same way, and that all human reasoning is bound to do this, which is a cornerstone of modern Kuyperianism, and humanism for that matter.
Schaeffer remarks of men, who he says held the two axioms he notices, i.e. the law of contradiction and the law of cause, before what he calls 'the tremendous shift' in thought, that they held these beliefs "not for any adequate reason but because man romantically acted upon" them. Ibid. page 19. He does this to hold up the ridiculous Kuyperian principle that human reason, outside the confines of Kuyperianism, cannot and never has functioned validly. But these axioms, as unchangeable laws of thought were legitimately held, and still are, by many who are not Christian. They are not something which men can be take or leave, as Schaeffer suggests, when he says they were held 'romantically' and without 'adequate reason'. In passing it can be noticed that Van Til, for various reasons (sic), rejects the law of contradiction.
The nonsense which follows the attempted denial of these plain teachings of consciousness in fact demonstrates their truth. Hegel (as above), and Schelling and Fichte, his forerunners, attempted their denial. Schelling's theory was, "…....….there exists no distinction of subject and object - no contrast of knowledge and existence; all difference is lost in absolute indifference - all plurality in absolute unity. The intuition itself, reason and the absolute are identical." Writings of Thornwell, Volume 3, page 150. Thornwell comments, "But consistency here is evidently maintained at the sacrifice of the possibility of thought." Ibid. In support of his comment, Thornwell quotes Fichte, who said, "I know absolutely nothing of any existence, not even my own; I, myself, know nothing, and am nothing. Images there are - they constitute all that apparently exists......I, myself, am one of these images; nay I am not even thus much, but only a confused image of images." Ibid. Thus men cannot escape the first truths of reason, these principles are a part of their nature. If they deny them. then they are lost in confusion.
It is only fair to say that Schaeffer has discussed with some sensitivity the difficulties men have Got into in denying these principles. But he has not taught, as he should have, that these principles are unchangeable laws of thought, inherent in man's rational faculty. Schaeffer's failure to see them as a part of man's nature has also led him, as indicated earlier in this paper, to overestimate the readiness of ordinary men to give up these doctrines. Really, the nonsense of Schelling, Fichte and Hegel is fairly easily seen.
A final point to be made here against both Schaeffer and Van Til, is that doctrines held to tenaciously by men which contradict sound reason or the truths of scripture, should be called prejudices and not presuppositions, because: 1. Prejudice implies an abuse of reason which the bland term presupposition does not, and that men might know better. And, 2. All men hold inescapably, the same laws of thought in common, whether they, including Kuyperians, will recognise this or not.
Schaeffer and Van Til are therefore quite out of touch on this matter of presuppositions, which is so much a feature of their systems. Consequently, Schaeffer's exhortation, "so now for us, more than ever before, a presuppositional apologetic is imperative", The God Who is There, page 14, should be disregarded.
APPENDIX II - FRANCIS BACON
Schaeffer's reference to Francis Bacon is interesting. Bacon is of importance to our position, since he is a principal forerunner of the Scottish Common Sense School. I believe that Schaeffer has misrepresented him. Schaeffer makes the following quotation from Bacon's Novum Organum: "Man by the Fall fell at the same time from his state of innocence and from his dominion over nature. Both of these losses, however can even in this life be in some part repaired; the former by religion and faith, the latter by the arts and the sciences." Escape from Reason, page 31. Schaeffer interprets this to mean, "Therefore science as science (and art as art) was understood to be, in the best sense, a religious activity. Notice in the quotation the fact that Francis Bacon did not see science as autonomous, for it was placed within the revelation of the scriptures at the point of the Fall." Ibid.
Schaeffer's interpretation is unjustified. Even in the quotation given, Bacon has distinguished religious activity from the arts and the sciences; so Schaeffer has insufficient ground to say that Bacon calls the arts and sciences 'religious activities'. We are thankful that Bacon acknowledges the truth of scripture, but it is equally clear that Bacon held to the system that Schaeffer opposes. For example, the nature-grace distinction is asserted by him. Thus Bacon commended, in James I of England, "a rare conjunction, as well of divine and sacred literature, as of profane and human." The Advancement of Learning, page 5, Oxford, 1974, (emphases mine). Also Bacon affirms the cosmological proof of God's existence, Ibid., page 11, and the legitimacy of natural theology, which he also calls 'divine philosophy', Ibid., pages 103-105. Kuyperianism, to which Schaeffer adheres, of course repudiates all this.
Van Til is aware that Bacon's doctrine, which we would style orthodox, is opposed to Kuyperianism: "So, for instance, Francis Bacon, whose sole interest was to make man king of the universe by means of science, nevertheless seeks for 'divine assistance' and prays with confidence 'to God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost' for help in his God-defying project." The Great Debate Today, by Cornelius Van Til, page 188, Presbyterian and Reformed, 1970. Van Til's remarks are an outrageous misrepresentation of Bacon, even though his rejection of Bacon is consistent with his Kuyperianism.
A just estimate of Bacon is contained in the following: "The question of (the existence of) a personal God might well be suspended upon the results, in science, to which its (i.e. science's) method of investigation has led. Bacon expounded the law (of Inductive Method, in the Novum Organum), and since Bacon what has not been accomplished? There is not a conquest in the world of matter or of mind which has not been won by the spirit of the inductive philosophy. It has explored every nook and corner of nature; it has trusted to nothing but its eyes and ears, and those eternal laws of thought which constitute the forms of knowledge. It has found order, law, a plan; it has discovered design, the operations of intelligence and will, and penetrated beyond nature to nature's God, as the author and finisher of all. It has seen and known." Writings of Thornwell, Volume 1, page 502. We are back to common sense and away from the vagaries of Kuyperianism.
SUMMARY
Gospel truth is corrupted first by accommodating the statement of its doctrines to the popular human philosophy. Schaeffer, a Kuyperian, advocates this procedure, contrary to scripture, which says we should teach 'not in the words which mans wisdom teaches'. He sees the difference between the Dutch and British/American Reformed theologians, preferring the former. His link with that school is Van Til. Differences are evident between the two however. Both equivocate over whether there is common ground with non-Christians. His history of philosophy, particularly of existentialism affecting modern culture, is interesting. He is concerned that we communicate the gospel to all people, and that faith be based on objective truth. However, there is more to philosophy than he indicates, and we object to his asserting scripture truth in human dialectical forms. The Bible is not the primary source of his method, his personal historical analysis is. We question his view of Hegel's importance. The Word preached in the old style still cuts through man's foolishness. The Word does not need sharpening with human philosophy. Ministers are Christ's ambassadors, and cannot change the statement of His message. Schaeffer doesn't give scripture proof for his method. Sin is the cause of evil philosophy, not vice versa, and scripture thoroughly notices the former. Schaeffer advocates a pre-evangelism, relegating the cross to second place, when it used to be the spearhead of evangelism. From scripture we argue that Christ crucified still holds pride of place in the Christian message. If non-Christians are intellectually incompetent, as Schaeffer and Van Til assert, how can they understand anything preached to them? If non-Christian philosophy is wrong, why use it to sharpen the gospel? Schaeffer talks of a tension in modern man, which he would use to determine gospel application. We prefer scripture's analysis of man's condition. Scepticism and wickedness have been present before, and the old preaching coped to the glory of God. Kuyperians, including Schaeffer, emphasise cultural involvement and obscure the heavenly-earthly distinction, tending to give each sphere equal priority, contrary to scripture. Calvin is with us. There are two tables of the law, man has a chief and a lesser end in accord with this. A separate Christian culture sounds monastic. Non-Christians possess secular skills; this is recognised by Calvin. Genius is required for real success in cultural pursuits, thus limiting these to a few, in terms of public impact, but not precluding a moderate recreational use by those not possessed of genius. Conservative evangelicalism rejects the theatre; this is not clear in Schaeffer. The evil associated with modern philosophy should not be flattered. Schaeffer talks of merging educational disciplines, as humanists do. Educational, cultural and religious disciplines have different functions and should be distinguished. Education and culture are not vehicles for a religious message. In politics Christians should consider the difficulty of finding the facts, and of knowing what is right. We do better to acknowledge God who rules over all, and to pray for our country.
독자 의견
댓글이 없습니다.