EVANGELICAL/NEO-EVANGELICALISM
IN THE CONTEXT OF AMERICAN THEOLOGY
Enlightenment and Liberalism
The inevitability of progress
The inherent goodness of man
The ultimacy of nature (no supernatural)
The perfectibility of man
Fundamentalism
Creation: God as creator
Man: Imago Dei
The Bible as the Word of God
Literal interpretation (Genesis, Eschatology, Prophecy, Premillennialism, Dispensationalism)
The Deity of Christ
The Vicarious Atonement
The Sinfulness of man
Salvation in “no other name”
The Return of Christ
Judgment: Heaven and Hell
No Sacrificium Intellectus: Faith is not the loss of intellectual integrity (not a “leap of faith” or “ultimate concern” or “blind gullibility”)
A. Changing vogue in academic circles
B. Evangelical Theology is not merely a viable option among pluralistic alternatives (Romans 1.16).
C. Evangelical Theology/choice among alternatives. Ground of theological reflection and construction in order to be intellectually and spiritually consistent.
D. Evangelical faith in Christ as Redeemer and Savior is the only faith that saves. We must not deform or pervert that revelation by reinterpreting it according to alien criteria or authorities.
E. Unity of Faith and Thought: No dichotomy between faith that is believed for salvation and the intellectual system that is developed for discourse with the academic/literary non-Christian world.
F. Van Til argues that unregenerate man cannot even understand much less accept prior to regeneration the biblical picture of God’s creative and redemptive work.
G. Therefore any attempt to inform the unbeliever concerning the content of the biblical proclamation, as distinguished from the attempt to persuade him to its truth suffers from serious limitations. The unbeliever overlooks or suppresses at least some significant aspects of the Gospel.
H. “Dialogue” only partially possible: Prior to regeneration the human mind is inherently incapable of grasping even merely intellectually, the substance of the biblical message. Consequently, the dialogue of the believing Christian thinks with the unbelieving intellectual colleagues will always operate under severe handicap. One dimension of the difficulty with the faith is removed, particularly in light of the fact that at least one major impediment to believe lies neither in the message itself nor in its presentation but in the heart of the unconverted hearer. The non evangelical thinker finds the evangelical presentation of the Gospel unbelievable or even ridiculous. These areas of disagreement can often be cleared up by appropriate dialogue (failure to grasp vs. rejection; the Holy Spirit’s work?) Successful persuasion through dialogue is an illusion (real faith requires repentance as well as dialogue).
I. Danger of Intellectual Respectability: Attempting to secure intellectual respectability is a worthy goal; but without a spiritual point of contact all efforts to secure the approval of the unbeliever will be fruitless. We must be tactful and erudite without altering the message.
J. We must beware of the subtle temptation to compromise, beginning with “cultural accretions,” “adiaphora,” and “non-essentials” in order to secure a better hearing.
K. All laudable attempts to communicate with the secular world view is by meeting its standards of excellence. The late Karl Barth, whose foundational theological position is at variance with biblical evangelicalism, is a case in point. His personal humility and his readiness to give a simple testimony to the Lord Jesus Christ as his Savior leaves little to be desired. Yet, his theological method and the system he constructed, although certainly the most impressive theological productivity since Calvin, failed to make any lasting impressions on the rest of the theological world or on his non-theological colleagues (cf. students and radical deviation, e.g., van Buren’s secular theology. However as Klaus Bockmuld shows in his very important monograph atheism in Christendom the unreality of God is already implicit in Barthian neo-orthodoxy despite the faith and personal piety that Barth displayed. A defective theology will not necessarily destroy an individual’s faith nor his personal relationship to Christ; but it will make it difficult or impossible for him to transmit or teach the truths of the faith to those who came after him. Much that is called post modern theology is purely a reaction, taking its strength from the “dead” orthodoxy it opposes.
Barth’s criticism of Liberalism/Shallow optimism. Studies in Dogmatics: Berkouwer, Van Til, Schaeffer, Rushdoony, Henry (the new modernism 1946) Berkouwer was contra Barth (some Evangelical positions endangering even fatal position (Triumph of Grace in the Theology of Karl Barth (English translation 1956; WWI Romerbrief, 1919/Word of God hermeneutic).
1. Berkouwer vs. Barth’s Word of God begins with the Providence of God (Dutch, 1950; E.T., 1952), 13 volumes. Most comprehensive reformed tradition doctrinal structure with God’s election and sovereignty in our century (Calvin Biblical authority, historicity of certain biblical narratives.
2. Cornelius Van Til (Dean of Calvinist Scholars in North America and a contemporary of Dooyeweerd (Barth nearest to Reformed) Christianity and Barthianism (1962). Van Til uses reformed philosopher Gordon H. Clark.
3. Van Til critiques Dooyeweerd in a theological direction. He says that Bultmann’s presuppositionless exegesis is impossible. Van Til uses scriptural presuppositions.
4. His student, Harvie M. Conn, describes his method.
a. Presuppositions of scripture.
b. Propositions of the scriptures.
c. Conclusions of the scriptures.
d. Neither neutral nor objective
e. Two arguments: Presuppositions of scripture vs. alien presuppositions (Bultmann’s existentialist analysis).
f. Scriptural presuppositions in order to understand it.
g. Bible presupposes ordering principle also objective truth revealed by the author of reality.
h. Accepting Biblical presupposition.
i. Illusionary pretension as Dooyeweerd’s analysis makes clear.
j. Presuppositions determine direction of development and its consequences.
k. Biblical presuppositions preserve us from the temptation to intellectual idolatry and brings us to “True Truth.”
5. Presuppositionalist: Speaking about (Francis Schaeffer’s) critique develops reality and not about religious spiritual truth by Dooyeweerd and Van Til denies any common ground between the believer and unbeliever.
a. Use of language.
b. Different meaning (Resurrection in Space and Time vs. encounter talk); historic reality not subjective response.
c. Van Til’s logical conclusions preclude cross-paradigm communication.
d. The late Edward J. Carnell, John W. Montgomery, Clark H. Pinnock – historical apologetics or presuppositions that a clear witness of history can communicate meaningfully to non-Christians.
e. Francis Schaeffer contra Van Til, critique of presupposition most Christian witnesses and apologists can gently argue presentation of factual material often produce a response of non-Christians. Combined Van Til’s presuppositions plus effective communication across barriers (Schaeffer, 1968). Revelation, reality and God; breakup of field of truth; Schaeffer’s “Divided” Field of Truth.
(1) Schaeffer/Dooyeweerd – medieval scholasticism gave relative autonomy to nature over grace.
(2) Science/Math – Transcendence – autonomy of nature realm; minds, math, and science – autonomous; seeks meaning in cause and effects; man’s quantum jump a leap of faith. Self and world have meaning, why? Source? Man creates his own meaning – man and world has meaning. Not a leap of faith but a reasonable experience of evidence.
(3) Creation – contra pantheism (Schaeffer affirmation of biblical religion). Near Eastern Pantheism, Greek/Roman Pantheism; Contemporary Science Fiction Pantheism (Star Wars, Jurassic Park, 1984, Brave New World, Indiana Jones, etc.); non-Linear (Universal Causation) Physics; New Age (Eastern Pantheism) Capra, et.al., Christian Science, etc.
(4) The world is not an illusion but is real (finite and subordinate to creator’s promises (word of purpose – goal/direction).
(5) Distinction and importance of individual person, not a harmful illusion (as in Eastern thought) but consequences of the personal nature of God. Trinity constant offense of Rationalist; stands not as an unnecessary complication but structure of creation. Causal connection relationship to structure of created order and condition of human life; creation-hood/potential adoption as children of God.
Athanasian creed trinity first article not arbitrary construction but as origin and structure of reality. God is the author and creator of all things. Existential human experience quest for personal identity and meaning; deny God must create your own identity and meaning. Two fundamental problems of our Post Modern Age.
(6) Schaeffer stresses reasonable importance of understanding revelation as proposition expressed in context deal with objective reality rather than merely with subjective interpretation.
Fall: Historic event pervasiveness and power of evil as we experience it; end not necessary part of God nor necessary attribute of man, human nature; rebellion against God to assert our individuality and authenticity as our Post Modern thought.
Contra Tillich: Man not actualized by rebellion at God as Tillich attempts explanation; the pervasive human awareness of estrangement and fallenness with recourse to the historic Fall; omen rebellion is real but not essential to our humanness. Salvation unlike Nirvana (Eastern view) does not entail absorption or loss of personhood nor blind existence within nature (clouds) (Christian caricature of Hope and Heaven).
Van Til criticized Schaeffer, Montgomery, Pinnock, Henry, and Ramm as being rationalistic (nor Rationalism): Knowledge has origin and validation in the mind. Faith not irrational escape attempt in an impersonal and meaningless universe. Refutation of Rationalism (Reasonable meaningfulness) mind and life.
(7) Positive Developments: (Promise in History) Theology – Christ the Center; Apologetics – Reasons for the Hope that lies within us. Evangelism – Witness to Promised One; Life Pattern: Disciple followers of Promised One (Udo Middelmann – Pro-existence – man’s stewardship/responsibilities under God in created order; no dimension of reality is autonomous; each have order, development, and justification within Paradigm Presupposition.
(8) Rousas J. Rushdoony, Institutes of Biblical Law (Charles Hodges, Systematic Theology) Individual Salvation, Restoration of Society in Post Millennial struggle to establish Kingdom of God. God’s Law and restored power in human society in all manifold aspects. Late dating of Isaiah’s Babylonian materials contradictory and varying theologies in Synoptic Gospels.
(9) Interpretation of political and economic social vision – Theological Pilgrims of Promise on a journey not home yet. Rushdoony’s Post Millennialism (What Evangelicals are PreMillennialists?)
Weakness – pietistic neo-evangelicalism; religious/secular dimension of life. (Carl Henry, 5 vols., God’s Revelation and Authority, 1976).
Encyclopedic critical synthesis of predecessors and contemporaries goes beyond mere criticism of error and mere restoration of creed and confessional dogmatic statements on the other.
(10) Criticism of presuppositions of Liberal/Post Modernism by recent neo-Evangelicals.
(a) Critique of supposedly assured results of Liberal Scholarship (Biblical Introduction, Interpretation, Hermeneutics (Osborn/Thieselton).
(b) Critique of Liberal Scholarship (Documentary Hypothesis/Origin of Pentateuch, late date of Daniel, and the Plurality of Isaiah. Late dating of Isaiah’s Babylonian materials contradictory and varying theologies in Synoptic Gospels. Late dating and Hellenistic collaboration of Johannine Corpus, etc. (Earlier Gleason Archer, R.K. Harrison, Everett F. Harrison, Donald Guthrie, F.F. Bruce.
(c) Evangelical Scholarship no longer feel intensive pressure in academia or in congregation. Biblical Scholarship that discredit the teaching of the Bible. Denominations/Roman Catholic Vatican II threat of assured results from Liberal/Post Modern results; Excessive concessions.
(d) Intellectual stream to relativize Biblical teaching and reduce to myth legend, tradition or symbol. Radically disintegration source and form criticism of Old and New Testaments.
(e) Second Movement (origins of documents of Revelation (origins of universe). Evolution, Mechanical Explanation, Life forms, Creation and Fall.
Bernard Ramm, A Christian View of Science and Scripture (Baker, 1995). Rachel H. King, The Creation of Death and Life (NY: Philosophical Library, 1970); A.E. Wilder Smith, Man’s Origin, Man’s Destiny (Wheaton: Harold Shaw, 1968); H.M. Morris, The Twilight of Evolution (Baker, 1964); J.H.T. Robinson, The Death of God; Eric L. Mascall, The Secularization of Christianity (skeptical relativistic presupposition of Robinson); John W. Montgomery, The Suicide of Christian Theology (futility and absurdity has overtaken culture as a whole; H.N. Rookmaaker, Modern Art and the Death of Culture; Os Guinness, The Dust of Death.
Creation (Man/Adam; Male/Female) Harmonize evolutionary view of all phases of reality (Astronomy, Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Paleontology, Anthropology, Psychology, Sociology (Social Science) Economics, Art, Literature, Media, Ethics).
Objections: Evolutionary Theory; Physical Science; Universal Law of Nature; Biological Evolution, Society, Religion.
New Evangelical Era: Harold J. Ockenga, 1947, Pastor of Park Street Church in Boston and President of the newly established Fuller Seminary in Pasadena, CA (National Association of Evangelicals, Fuller Seminary, Billy Graham, Christianity Today).
Robert D. Wilson and J.G. Machen transferred from Princeton to Westminster; GordonCollege and DivinitySchool started as a revolt.
1. Rising new intellectuals among Fundamentalists; Charles Fuller, sound doctrine, The Revival Hour, true to the Bible in preaching and reaching.
2. Wilbur M. Smith, Carl F.H. Henry, Charles J. Woodbridge – academic credentials, warm-hearted evangelists and pastors.
3. Saw Fuller Theological Seminary as a life-saving boost for Christianity.
4. New Apologetic Literature – C.J.H. Henry, E.J. Carnell (became president), George Ladd. Woodbridge left Fuller in 1965 (The New Evangelicalism (Bob Jones Press, 1969)
Wheaton College, Gordon College, Fuller, Campus Crusade, Young Life, Inter Varsity, Youth for Christ, Christian Life, New Evangelicalism, World Vision, Evangelism in Depth.
Wm. E. Ashbrook, The New Neutralism (Columbus, OH, 1966); Robert P. Lightner, New Evangelicalism (Des Plaines, IL: Regular Baptist, 1965); Millard Erickson, The New Evangelicalism (NY: Revell, 1968).
North American Evangelicals and the Berlin Conference on Evangelism, 1966.
1. Literalism(Cornell, Henry, and Ramm attack fundamentalism (Daniel Fuller thought some scripture was not revelatory)
2. Views on New Testament issues
3. Weakness in separation
4. Contra Dispensationalism
Bibliography
Peter Berger, The Noise of Our Solemn Assemblies (Garden City, NY) 1963.
G.C. Berkouwer, The Triumph of Grace in the Theology of Karl Barth (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans) 1956.
Harry Blamires, The Christian Mind (Seabury, NY) 1963
Colin Brown, Philosophy and the Christian Faith (Chicago, InterVarsity Press, 1969).
______. Karl Barth and the Christian Message (London, Tyndale) 1967.
Vincent Brummer, Transcendental Criticism and Christian Philosophy (Fraineker: T. Wever, 1961.
Gordon H. Clark, A Christian View of Men and Things (Eerdman, 1952).
______. Karl Barth’s Theology and Methods (Presbyterian and Reformed, 1963).
Harvie M. Conn, Contemporary World Theology (Nutley, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1975).
Herman Dooyeweerd, A New Critique of Theoretical Thought (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed) 1953.
E.R. Geehan, editor, Jerusalem and Athens: What Does Jerusalem Have to do with Athens? (Nutley, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed) 1971.
Oz Guiness, The Dust of Death (IVP, 1973).
Carl F.H. Henry, Frontiers in Modern Theology (Moody Press, 1966); also Remaking the Modern Mind (Eerdmans, 1946).
J. Gresham Machen, Christianity and Liberalism (NY: MacMillan) 1923.
Eric L. Mascall, the Secularization of Christianity (London: Darton, Longman and Todd) 1965).
John W. Montgomery, The Suicide of Christian Theology (Downers Grove, IL: IVP).
Clark H. Pinnock, Biblical Revelation, The Foundation of Christian Theology (Chicago: Moody Press, 1971).
H.R. Rookmaaker, Modern Art and the Death of Culture (Downers Grove, IVP, 1970).
Van Til, Cornelius. The Defense of the Faith (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed) 1967.
______. Christianity and Barthianism (Ibid., 1962).
Additional Note
There are crucial issues of challenge in 2005. In the 21st century the Church is faced with some enormous conflicts, such as the heresy extended in the book by Rick Warren, The Purpose Driven Church. With Chuck Colson, I would propose it would state a “WorldViewDrivenChurch.” The issue is—whose purpose? The radical influence on our Restoration Heritage is ultimately destructive. New non foundational Evangelicals are directly dominated by Kant’s First Critique.
Web site:
Dr. James Strauss, Lincoln, Illinois
1