A CRITIQUE OF FRANCIS SCHAEFFER

‘For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: but we preach Christcrucified; unto the Jews a stumbling block, and unto the Greeks foolishness; but unto themwhich are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.’ 1Corinthians 1:22-24.

D. R. Trethewie

Reforming and Congregational Church East Geelong.

Copyright © 2013.

Previous editions, 1976 and 1978, 1999, 2003.

2

3

‘The existence of God is really a cognition of the human soul, like the cognition of matter orof ourselves. It is so inseparable from the development of reason that wherever we find aman, we find one who is not a stranger to the existence of God. The real problem ofTheology is not to prove that a God exists, as if she were instructing the ignorant or impartinga new truth to the mind, but to show the grounds upon which we are already in possession ofthe truth1. It is to vindicate an existing faith, and not to create a new one. The belief itself isuniversal—as universal as the belief in the soul. However men may differ on other points,they agree in this.’

The Collected Writings of James Henley Thornwell, Volume 1, page 58, Banner of Truth,1974.

‘Those that would learn well, and teach well, in religion, must not affect new found notionsand new-coined phrases, so as to look with contempt upon the knowledge and language oftheir predecessors; if we must keep to the good old way, why should we scorn the good oldwords? Jeremiah 6:16—“Thus says the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for theold paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and you shall find rest for your souls. Butthey said we will not walk therein.”’ (Emphases mine).

Comment of Matthew Henry upon “Let thine heart retain my words.” Proverbs 4:4, in hisCommentary, Volume 3, page 811, Revell.

1 The importance of this point is alluded to in Answer 2, on page 20 of the present paper.

4

5

PREFACE

This is a second study in a series examining Kuyperianism today. The present paper is acritical review of key features of two of the works of Francis Schaeffer: 1. Escape fromReason, and 2. The God Who is There. As I have studied both Schaeffer and Van Til, I havecome to the opinion that we who prefer the ‘old paths’ have two main objectives in dealingwith the systems of these men: 1. To free theology from their philosophical impositions, and2. To free secular studies from their clericalism. This runs to the centre of the debate, i.e. ‘Isthe nature-grace distinction just?2’ I contend that it is. Deny this distinction as they do, andwhat follows—theology is embroiled in philosophy, and secular studies in clericalism.

Because Kuyperianism does not make this distinction, not only is theology spoiled withphilosophy, but in addition the doctrines necessary unto salvation are not given the distinctivedefinition and priority they merit. Van Til rejects a category of doctrines necessary untosalvation as usually understood by Reformed theologians, and at the very least Schaefferinterferes with their priority. Against Kuyperianism it can be justly argued that in fact theChurch’s special role is to expound the doctrines necessary unto salvation. She has aninterest in the doctrines discoverable by the light of nature, but they are not her prerogative:philosophers, scientists and men generally may discuss these teachings with some authorityand without the need for church patronage.

A special aim of this paper is to protect the abiding usefulness of the Historical Witness.Schaeffer’s doctrine was first presented to me in 1969. What concerned me then, was itsthreat to the established doctrinal and practical theology bequeathed to us from formergenerations. It was implied that this theology, in its presentation, was not up to date enoughfor the twentieth century. Schaeffer deceptively invites us not to change the doctrine, just themanner of its presentation.

The old exegesis proceeds on a plan of plainness and simplicity. Schaeffer wants a change inline with twentieth century philosophy. Philosophy, especially when inaccurate, andSchaeffer admits that the twentieth century systems are erroneous, is notoriously difficult forthe ordinary man. The scripture message thus cannot be made plainer on Schaeffer’s advice,and the corruption of its substance is very likely.

2 The distinction between nature and grace is defended in these papers against Kuyperianism, which seeks toobliterate the distinction altogether. The application however, of this distinction to the fall of man, made byRoman Catholic theologians is unacceptable. In order to gain a semi-Pelagian position with respect to thehuman will, the Roman Catholic church has resorted, without a shred of scripture evidence, to a subtle andartificial discussion of the fall. In this they have said that man was created naturally holy, but subject toconcupiscence, which they argue is not sin! They define sin as inordinate concupiscence. God, they assert, laterbestowed on unfallen man the supernatural grace of original righteousness, which prevented concupiscencefrom becoming inordinate. When man fell, according to Roman Catholicism, supernatural grace only was lost.Thus they can assert that a power of natural holiness remains in fallen man. Reformed evangelical Christianitydenies this, as it is unscriptural, and of course not true to the nature of the case or found in experience. How thissubtle artifice of Rome leads to semi-Pelagianism, and its refutation in detail, may be read for example, inLectures in Systematic Theology, by Robert Dabney, pages 297ff, Zondervan, 1972 and in Historical Theology,Volume 1, by William Cunningham, pages 516ff, Banner of Truth, 1960. It is quite inappropriate forKuyperians to deny valid intellectual capacity to fallen man, on the basis that Reformed Christianity rejects theapplication of the nature-grace distinction to the fall with respect to holiness and sin.

6

7

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................... 9SCHAEFFER’S GENERAL POSITION.................................................................................... 10PRACTICAL CRITICISM—THE MODE OF GOSPEL PRESENTATION ............................ 10MORE ON SCHAEFFER’S POSITION.................................................................................... 13

Relation to the Dutch School................................................................................................... 13Schaeffer and Cornelius Van Til ............................................................................................. 13Common Ground with Non-Christians.................................................................................... 14Non-Christian Work in the Natural Sphere ............................................................................. 15Commendable Features ........................................................................................................... 15

CRITICISM OF HIS BASIC THESIS........................................................................................ 16His History of Philosophy........................................................................................................ 16The Gospel and Philosophy..................................................................................................... 16The Bible Not His Primary Source .......................................................................................... 16Hegel’s Significance................................................................................................................ 17The Power of God’s Word....................................................................................................... 17Ministers are Ambassadors...................................................................................................... 18Scripture Proof Requested ....................................................................................................... 18Sin the Cause of Tribulation not Philosophy........................................................................... 18The Priority of the Gospel and Experimental Preaching ......................................................... 19

PRE-EVANGELISM .................................................................................................................. 19A Similar Approach from Sydney ........................................................................................... 19Answers ................................................................................................................................... 20A Contradictory Element ......................................................................................................... 22Schaeffer Does Preach the Gospel........................................................................................... 22

THE CONDITION OF THE UNCONVERTED........................................................................ 23What does Scripture Say, and Heathen Testimony.................................................................. 23Schaeffer’s View of Sin too Narrow ....................................................................................... 23The Past Not so Different ........................................................................................................ 24

CHRISTIANITY AND CULTURE............................................................................................ 24Our Position............................................................................................................................. 24The Heavenly and Earthly Spheres Merged ............................................................................ 25Two Commandments............................................................................................................... 25The Cultural Skills of Non-Christians ..................................................................................... 26Genius and Cultural Success ................................................................................................... 26The Theatre and Poor Literature.............................................................................................. 27No Flattery Intended ................................................................................................................ 27A Humanistic Doctrine of Education ...................................................................................... 28Education and Culture are Not Religious Media..................................................................... 28Politics ..................................................................................................................................... 29

APPENDIX I—PRESUPPOSITIONS........................................................................................ 30APPENDIX II—FRANCIS BACON.......................................................................................... 32SUMMARY................................................................................................................................ 33

8

9

INTRODUCTION

The March 1976 Banner of Truth Magazine printed an extract from Dabney’s SacredRhetoric (Richmond, Virginia, 1881). In it there is a most perceptive comment which can bebrought to bear on the debate with the modern Dutch theologians, and with Francis Schaeffer.

Dabney says, “It is exceedingly instructive to note, that there are three stages through whichpreaching has passed with the same results. The first is that in which scriptural truth isfaithfully presented in scriptural garb—that is to say, not only are all the doctrines assertedwhich truly belong to the revealed system of redemption, but they are presented in that dressand connection in which the Holy Spirit has presented them, without seeking any other fromhuman science. This state of the pulpit marks the golden age of the Church. The second isthe transition stage. In this, the doctrines taught are still those of the Scriptures, but theirrelations are moulded into conformity with the prevalent human dialectics3. God’s truth isnow shorn of part of its power over the soul. The third stage is then near, in which not onlyare the methods and explanations conformed to the philosophy of the day, but the doctrinesthemselves contradict the truth of the Word. Again and again have the clergy travelled thisdescending scale, and always with the same disastrous results.”

[See Sacred Rhetoric, pages 27-28, eventually republished, Banner of Truth, 1979]

3 i.e. The doctrines and terminology of the currently fashionable philosophy.

10

SCHAEFFER’S GENERAL POSITION

Schaeffer, in common with the modern Dutch theologians, rejects the distinction of earthlyand heavenly things of Aquinas, i.e. the nature-grace concept. He suggests that once thisdistinction is made nature will inevitably “eat up” grace. Also, “Schaeffer does not proveGod in the same way as the old-fashioned proofs which, in any case he rejects. He seems totake God’s existence for granted.” Philosophy and the Christian Faith, by Colin Brown, page265, Paternoster, 1969. Brown too rejects the theistic proofs; it appears to be the modernfashion, even among those who say they are friends of the truth.

PRACTICAL CRITICISM—THE MODE OF GOSPEL PRESENTATION

Before considering Schaeffer’s position more widely I would first look at the practicalrecommendations he advocates upon the basis of his thesis, because these recommendationscan be identified with a phase in the corruption of gospel teaching, occurring repeatedly inhistory, pointed to by Dabney in a quotation in the Introduction to the present paper. This Ibelieve is the most profitable criticism that can be made of Schaeffer.

Schaeffer says that the facts of Christianity are unchangeable but these unchangeable factshave to be communicated in a changing world. So he rejects what he calls “speaking thegospel only in familiar phrases to the middle classes.” Escape from Reason, page 93, I.V.P.,1971. The formula urged is, “Each generation of the church in each setting has theresponsibility of communicating the gospel in understandable terms, considering the languageand thought forms of that setting.” Ibid. pages 93-94. Schaeffer suggests that twentiethcentury intellectuals, working class people and children cannot be reached with the ‘familiarphrases’. See also his work The God Who is There, page 162, Hodder and Stoughton, 1968.

Thus Schaeffer advocates a method of preaching the gospel which is equivalent to thetransition phase in the decline of the purity of the pulpit, to which Dabney has pointed.Schaeffer would keep the scripture doctrines, but is not satisfied with their native dress andconnection, their ‘familiar phrases’. He would have them presented with ‘the methods andexplanations conformed to the philosophy of the day’. And so, ‘God’s truth is now shorn ofpart of its power over the soul’. We are to use Schaeffer’s view of twentieth centurydialectics as the vehicle for transmitting God’s Word.

As an example of what Schaeffer means he takes John 20:31 and says, “In twentieth centurylanguage we could translate ‘sign’ as ‘space-time proof’: ‘Many other space-time proofstherefore did Jesus.’” The God Who is There, page 140. In the same vein, using Schaeffer asan authority, I have heard it said that we should not use the word sin, but an alternative suchas rebellion, because twentieth century man equates the word ‘sin’ with sexual immoralityonly. Also the traditional scripture terms have been referred to as jargon, because, it is said,modern man’s thought does not comprehend them. In passing it could be argued againstSchaeffer that a person of the first century would understand the term space-time proofdespite its sophistication, and equally that modern man would comprehend the scripture termsign despite its simplicity.

11

The justly memorable William Jay of Bath, England, seconding Robert Dabney, remarks ofthis technique of Francis Schaeffer, “New terms imperceptibly make way for new doctrines;nor has any subtlety of the enemy of souls succeeded better in corrupting the mind from thesimplicity there is in Christ, than modernising the language of divinity. When men are shy ofthe ‘words the Holy Spirit teaches,’ we are always afraid they are beginning to be ashamed ofthe things.4” The Christian Contemplated, 6th Edition, page 7, reprinted by SprinklePublications, 2003. Emphasis mine.

And, in the same vein, as above, from the prince of commentators, Matthew Henry “Thosethat would learn well, and teach well, in religion, must not affect new found notions and new-coined phrases, so as to look with contempt upon the knowledge and language of theirpredecessors; if we must keep to the good old way, why should we scorn the good old words?Jeremiah 6:16—‘Thus says the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the oldpaths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and you shall find rest for your souls. Butthey said we will not walk therein.’” Emphases mine. Comment of Matthew Henry upon“Let thine heart retain my words.” Proverbs 4:4, in his Commentary, Volume 3, page 811,Revell.

Another example Schaeffer has given concerns the practical witness of our lives as Christiansbefore men. Instead of expounding this matter simply from scripture, he borrows a conceptfrom the existentialists, who he says “are right at this place”, stating, “What will matter is ourrelationship to the Lord Jesus, individually and then corporately, at this existential moment.What counts………is whether we are exhibiting God and His character now.” The God Whois There, page 152. What he is getting at escapes me a little. However, apart from theimpropriety of his using a philosophical concept to express a scripture principle, what he hassaid appears contrary to scripture. Christ has told us not to be confident of our witness at onepoint; He has said rather, “If you continue in my word, then are you my disciples indeed.”John 8:31. Also, “But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.” Matthew24:13. (Emphases mine).

We might examine a little further what Schaeffer means by ‘speaking the gospel only infamiliar phrases to the middle classes’. There is much in modern preaching that we toowould take exception to. It is often superficial, and plainly contradicts scripture. But if, as itseems, Schaeffer reprehends the proclamation of the gospel in the style of the cloud ofwitnesses who have gone before us, because such a presentation is not sophisticated enoughfor modern man, then Schaeffer needs to be taken to scripture and told, “My speech and mypreaching was not with enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spiritand of power: that your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power ofGod.” 1 Corinthians 2:4-5.

This is the crux of my contention with Schaeffer: the simplicity of the scripture style, which isone of its most excellent characteristics, is to be maintained in its proclamation. Schaeffer’sproposal is to ignore that “The philosophy and oratory of the heathen were suited principally,if not solely, to their capacity that were learned: this the authors and professors of it aimedat—namely, that they might approve their skill and ability unto those who were able to judgethem. The scripture was written for the good of mankind in general, and without the least

4 The point is that Schaeffer is accommodating himself to modern academic taste, because the old evangelicalstyle seems naïve and shameful to the modern generation.

12

design of any contemperation of itself to the learning and wisdom of men; and thisσυνκαταβασις, or condescension unto the common reason, sense, usage, and experience, of mankind in general; is very admirable in the holy penmen, and absolutely peculiar untothem.” An Exposition of Hebrews, by John Owen, Volume 1, page 54, N.F.C.E., 1969.

In support of this contention Owen cites Augustine, who said of the holy penmen, “I dare saythat whosoever understands what they speak, will also understand that they ought not to havespoken otherwise.” Ibid. Origen’s comment on the writings of Paul too, is cited, “If anyonegive himself to the diligent reading of his (Paul’s) epistles, I know full well that either he willadmire his great conceptions under a plain and vulgar style, or he will show himself veryridiculous.” Ibid. So with Owen we would commend the “excellent simplicity of theScripture style...…….without fraudulent ornaments.” Ibid. page 55. The corruption of thissimplicity, along the lines suggested by Schaeffer will not only hinder the communication ofthe scripture message, but in all probability will also corrupt the message itself.

It is clear that Schaeffer wants a change in the mode of presentation of the gospel, suggestingthat if we continue the old style, this “would be as wrong as if, for example, Hudson Taylorhad sent missionaries to China and then told them to learn only one of three separate dialectsthat the people spoke.” Escape from Reason, page 93. On the basis of this analogy Schaefferwould have us translate the gospel into what he calls twentieth century language and thoughtforms. But this is to confuse language with philosophical dialectic.

To take a simple illustration. In the ancient world there was one Greek Language, but avariety of philosophical schools using this language, both successively and simultaneously.That the language was distinct from the thought forms of the schools is clear because:

1. The various schools held differing doctrines, but discussed these doctrines in the samelanguage.2. The language was principally a vehicle for communication between ordinary people, aboutcommon affairs, and not a peculiar philosophical tool.3. When the New Testament was written in Greek it was not accommodated to any school ofphilosophy, nor even to a vague ‘Hellenistic’ mode of thought. The Greek was simply usedin its common meaning.

Implicit in the distinction between language and philosophical dialectic is the fact that thelanguage and common sense of mankind are more impervious to the tenets of falsephilosophy than Schaeffer appreciates. Thornwell has said of common sense principles thatthey are “a part of the natural faith of mankind; and, practically, nature has always assertedthem in defiance of the sophistries of a perverse philosophy.” Collected Writings, Volume 1,page 219. The truth of Thornwell’s assertion is demonstrated by this very fact, that despitethe bombardment of the Greeks with a series of philosophies, they developed a language sofree of the taint of philosophical error that the Holy Spirit used it in the production of the NewTestament.

Paul found no reason to accommodate his message to Hellenistic philosophy in the ancientworld. Neither should we be tempted by insinuations that we might overcome our so-calledfailure to communicate, to give out a message dressed in the sophistications of the twentiethcentury. Schaeffer’s analogy from the dialects of language does not justify fitting the

13

scripture doctrines ‘into conformity with the prevalent human dialectics,’ to use Dabney’swords.The question ‘Is Dabney right?’ might be asked. Well Dabney’s opinion is based upon anexamination of the history of the church, and its relations to the philosophical schools. Whathe says can be substantiated. One has only to think of the influence of Platonism on the earlychurch, Aristotelianism on the medieval church, and enlightenment philosophy, includingGerman rationalism and French Revolutionary thinking, on the modern church. Schaeffer toodraws attention to some of this history.

The scripture support for Dabney’s view of the undesirability of this process of fittingscripture doctrine with the prevalent philosophy is as follows: “For Christ sent me not tobaptise, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should bemade of none effect.” 1 Corinthians 1:17. And, “Which things we also speak, not in thewords which man’s wisdom teaches, but which the Holy Spirit teaches.” 1 Corinthians 2:13.We are not to teach ‘in the words that man’s wisdom teaches’, but to stick to the simple styleimpressed upon the Word by the Holy Spirit.

Thus we are distressed by Schaeffer’s criticism of us, who would go on preaching fromscripture, in its own terms, its own ‘familiar phrases’, if you like, in the old way. We mustdistinguish between knowing the errors of the day, and translating the gospel into their idiom.

MORE ON SCHAEFFER’S POSITION

Relation to the Dutch School

He recognises the difference between the British/American Reformed theologians and theDutch, which I have discussed in my paper, A Critique of Kuyperianism. His preference forthe Dutch position is fairly clear: “In Holland, for example, more than in Anglo-SaxonChristianity they emphasised that this (the Lordship of Christ over the whole man) meant aLordship of Christ in culture5. So it means that Christ is equally Lord in both areas:GRACE/NATURE.” Escape from Reason, page 29.

Schaeffer and Cornelius Van Til

His special link with this school seems to be Cornelius Van Til. For Schaeffer rejects naturaltheology, uses the ‘presuppositional method’, and speaks of ‘autonomous man’. How closethe link with Van Til is appears to be somewhat uncertain. Errol Hulse says that, “Some havequestioned this (the association between Schaeffer and Van Til) since Van Til lays such stresson the fact that believers have no common ground with ‘autonomous man’.” The Church asConfessing Community III—The Relevance of the Confession, page 4, Reformed StudiesConference, Melbourne, 1973. The implication is that Schaeffer is so concerned to help thelost in the twentieth century that he concedes that some common ground does exist. We

5 More on Christianity and culture can be seen on page 24 of this paper.

14

believe he has been carried away to the extent that he advocates the use of the philosophies ofthe lost too.

Common Ground with Non-Christians

By ‘common ground’ between Christians and non-Christians is meant an area of facts and aprocess of reasoning about these facts, which is neutral, and about which there is agreement.Our doctrine is that there is such common ground. As far as ordinary men are governed bycommon sense, and to a large extent they are, then the reasoning process and the factsascertained are the same for Christians and non-Christians.

As indicated previously, the rejection of scripture truth by men is not so much due tointellectual failure on their part, but because of enmity in their hearts. Indeed we may stillassert the truth to those who are prejudiced against it, because these prejudices6 outrage theirown reasoning faculty, which remains our ally in their soul.

On whether there is common ground between believers and unbelievers, both Schaeffer andVan Til in my view equivocate, i.e. they try both to deny it and to affirm it. PerhapsSchaeffer does concede more than Van Til.

The following quotes may help to demonstrate Schaeffer’s doctrine. “Thirty or more yearsago you could have said things as ‘This is true’ or ‘This is right’, and you would have been oneverybody’s wavelength.” The God Who is There, page 13. A major part of his thesis is whathe calls the ‘tremendous shift’ in the philosophical outlook of people in the U.S. since about1935. He asserts that the same change occurred in Europe in about 1890. This implies thatpeople were thinking more correctly previously. I doubt if Van Til would accept the baldnessof Schaeffer’s contention that we then would have been ‘on everybody’s wavelength’. Alsohe would reject the same thought put another way by Schaeffer: “Before those dates (asabove) everyone would have been working on the same presuppositions.” Ibid. Van Tilwould say that Christians and non-Christians have always had, and will always have, adifferent set of presuppositions.

The equivocation appears in Schaeffer as follows:

1. Speaking of man before the ‘tremendous shift’ he says, “Now it may be argued that thenon-Christian had no right to act on the presuppositions he acted on. That is true.” Ibid. Hetells us they then held true presuppositions, but had no right to do so, implying, because of hisKuyperian stance, that they had another, deeper set of presuppositions which should havemade them reject the true ones. Schaeffer’s concession that men then had the rightpresuppositions is therefore not bona fide, being contradicted by his qualification that ‘theyhad no right to act on’ them. A right preserved for intolerant Kuyperianism.

2. Speaking of man after the shift, he says, “In practice then, we do have a point forconversation, but this point is not properly to be spoken of as ‘neutral’. It exists because,regardless of a man’s system, he has to live in God’s world.” Ibid. page 125. In our day,when men are bound more firmly by ‘wrong presuppositions’, according to Schaeffer, we are

6 Van Ti1 and Schaeffer use the insipid expression wrong presupposition where we would use prejudice. Afuller discussion of presuppositions can be read in Appendix I of this paper.

15

supposed still to ‘have a point for conversation’! This is contradictory. The contradiction isreasserted when he tells us that the point of contact is not ‘neutral’. Van Til speaks in asimilar manner.

Both Schaeffer and Van Til are really caught in a net here. They say we have a point ofcontact in conversation, implying some agreement, and yet they still maintain that the non-Christian does not know what we are talking about! The reason they give, that we may talkeffectively with non-Christians, is emptied of weight by their theory. Whether a man lives inGod’s world or not, can make no difference to the possibility of valid communication withhim, if the man’s presuppositions substantially distort (as they allege) all the informationcoming to his intellect.

Non-Christian Work in the Natural Sphere

Schaeffer also seems to recognise that men can do valid work in the natural sphere. Such aconcession puts a significant crack in the Kuyperian edifice, and contradicts his basic thesis.He says, “Some of them (linguistic philosophers in a British university) have quite properlyestablished a reputation for rationality in the definition of words, but they then make a leap,changing their mask by attacking Christianity on the basis of a Humanism which has norelationship whatsoever to the downstairs area of linguistic analysis.” Escape from Reason,page 57. Here he talks more like us, though we wonder about such jargon as ‘downstairsarea’. He acknowledges natural man’s ability in language study, and the abuse of reason inattacking Christianity. In a similar vein, there is a reference to John Cage, an existentialistmusician who said, “I became aware that if I approached mushrooms in the spirit of mychance operations (which he uses in music) I would die shortly……....So I decided that Iwould not approach them in this way.” The God Who is There, page 73. Schaeffer says ofCage, he is “one of the best amateur mycologists (one who studies fungi) in the country(U.S.A.)”. Ibid.

Commendable Features

Although I must reject Schaeffer’s general position, I believe his work has certaincommendable features. His discussion of the development of philosophy from the middleages to modern despair and existentialism is most interesting. I find most enlightening hisremarks concerning the influence of existentialism on modern art, literature and music. Healso traces its effect in theology. The glossary in The God Who is There, pages 175-178, ishelpful.

I think he is right to show such a concern for the need to communicate the gospel to allclasses of society. Christ said, “the poor have the gospel preached to them,” Matthew 11:5,and Paul preached to Greek intellectuals on Mars Hill. Acts 17.

Further his emphasis that faith is to be put in truth is correct, and that Christians should becareful not to present the Christian life as a leap in the dark—a form of existential experience.Existentialists, holding opinions the logical conclusion of which is despair, look around for anon-rational way to find meaning for themselves. They say they find it in an experience, thenature of which cannot be discussed because it is non-rational. Schaeffer’s warning is that,

16

“The phrase accepting Christ as Saviour can mean anything. We are not saying what we aretrying to say, unless we make completely clear that we are talking about objective truth, whenwe say Christianity is true and therefore accepting Christ as Saviour is not just some form ofupper storey leap”. The God Who is There, page 142.

CRITICISM OF HIS BASIC THESIS

His History of Philosophy

On two of the points above I would proffer two immediate criticisms. Firstly, in the twobooks I have referred to, his discussion of the development of philosophy is in outline form,and rather assertive. One might ask, where is the evidence to prove that his analysis of thehistory of philosophy is correct? We reject his tracing all the trouble to Aquinas’s distinctionof nature and grace. Duns Scotus7 and Ockham are left out, who were two scholastics criticalof Aquinas on grounds similar to those of Schaeffer. Calvin did recognise the nature-gracedistinction, and the ability of unconverted men in the natural realm, and even to a limitedextent in matters pertaining to God. There is more variety and mosaicism in philosophy thanthe simple linear development he describes. However he does mention that logical positivismand defining philosophy are more significant than existentialism in the Anglo-Saxon world.Yet there are other features left out: rationalists and empiricists have been in conflict witheach other for example, and what of pragmatism which has had a great vogue in the U.S.?The Scottish Common Sense School, to which the Alexanders, Hodges, Dabney, Thornwelland Warfield belong in philosophy, is not noticed, though Francis Bacon, one of theirforerunners, is, see Escape from Reason, page 31. His account of Bacon is unsatisfactoryhowever—see Appendix II of the present paper. I gather that since the nineteen sixties,existentialists have wandered off in other directions; do we have to translate the gospel intothe new thought forms? Further, do we need a different thought form for each philosophy,given the variety that even Schaeffer admits?

The Gospel and Philosophy

Secondly, our concern to communicate the gospel should not be abused by using humandialectics to transmit the gospel.

The Bible Not His Primary Source

The Bible is not the primary source of his method. His approach is too philosophical. Whatwe are to do in the ministry is conditioned on a study of the development of human ideasthrough history, rather than on the directions we are given in the scriptures. The keystone tohis argument appears to be that prior to Hegel people believed in the law of cause and the lawof contradiction, the latter affirming the distinctness of individual things, and so couldunderstand the scriptures in the ordinary way. But, “With the coming of Hegel all this

7 Or whoever was the author of the Theoremata, if Scotus was not.

17

changed.” The God Who is There, page 19. He suggests that since Hegel, who attacked thelaws of cause and contradiction8, thought forms have so changed that the old preaching is justnot good enough anymore.

Hegel’s Significance

The significance Schaeffer gives to Hegel is worth questioning. Certainly his ideas can beseen progressing to existentialism, he was a factor in the development of Nazism, and Marxused his doctrine to elaborate Communism. However one might justly argue that logicalpositivism and its attendant, materialistic atheism is the erroneous philosophy which is themost serious contender for pre-eminence in the West. Further, the evil of Hegelian idealismand pantheism has been generally recognised: “Mountains of dust and rubble and millions ofgraves testify today to the fatal character of such one-sided historical thinking as that ofHegel.” Douglas Gerrold in Everyman’s Encyclopaedia, Volume 9, page 621, Dent, 1970.Also, idealism and pantheism are not new errors, they have been in the West for at least twothousand years. The old preaching coped all right with them before.

The Power of God’s Word

But the philosophical question aside, what Schaeffer is challenging is the ability of the Wordof God to cut its own path into the human soul, and the Word’s authority to determine whatand how we should preach. We believe that, “The Word of God is quick, and powerful, andsharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit,and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.”Hebrews 4:12. There is no philosophical cloak or shield that a man can so cover himself withthat the sword of Spirit cannot cleave it asunder, and if it comes in the power of the Spiritthen all is carried before it. How vain a thought it is to consider that we could sharpen thatsword with human philosophy!

John Owen speaks most highly of the power of the Word in this regard: “Multitudes there areunto whom the word is declared who hate all its precepts, despise all its promises, abhor allits threatenings, approve of nothing, of what it declares or proposes; yet dare not absolutelyrefuse or reject it……….They hate it, wish it were not, hope it is not true; but are not by anymeans able to shake off a disquiet in the sense of its divine authority. This testimony it hasfixed in the heart of multitudes of its enemies, Psalm 45:5.” Works, Volume 4, pages 98-99,Banner of Truth, 1967.

I found it interesting in 1976 to notice in a television series considering the history of' Europe,called The Mighty Continent, that one programme was titled ‘How are the Mighty Fallen’,which is a well known scripture quotation from 2 Samuel 1:19. The analogy drawn was tothe crash of European nations in the Second World War and just after. Peter Ustinov, one ofthe comperes, went further and quite soberly found an explanation of the cause in the verse,“Pride goes before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.” Proverbs 16:18. Thesepeople do not claim to be Reformed Christians, yet they are able, validly, to fit simple Bible

8 A fuller discussion of this can be seen in Appendix I, on Presuppositions.

18

testimonies to historical circumstances. Such power has the Word. Corrupt philosophy hasnot yet carried the day. As an aside it can be noted that Peter Ustinov, though not seeming tobe Christian himself, was born British because his grandfather came to England after beingexpelled from the Russian Army, in which he was an officer, because he had become anevangelical Christian.

Ministers are Ambassadors

Jesus said, “All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. Go you therefore, and teach allnations, baptising them, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit:teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with youalways, even to the end of the world. Amen.” Matthew 28:18-20. This is the infinitely wiseGod who has spoken. Surely He knows what is fit for man, His own creature, and hasprovided enduring words suitable to all generations. Surely Christ has a right to speak Hisown words. We are but his ambassadors, and are unfaithful to our trust if we do not deliverHis message in His own words. Preaching Christ before men is our prime work. Howsoeverthey are darkened, by looking unto Him they shall be lightened. “Look unto me, and be yesaved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else.” Isaiah 45:22. Thismessage is for ‘all the ends of the earth’, no change in line with the philosophy of the day isrequired.

Scripture Proof Requested

Such a major alteration in our method is conceived by Schaeffer that we must insist thatscripture proof be provided, before we set out to transmit gospel truth in the shifting sands ofcapricious philosophical dialects. There is no such proof. Rather Christ has warned us not toleaven our teaching with the errors of sceptics, who in His day were represented by theSadducee party. “Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.”Matthew 16:6. We quote Augustine again, as above, ‘I dare say that whosoever understandswhat they (the holy penmen of the scriptures) speak, will also understand that they ought notto have spoken otherwise.’ Away with attempting to sophisticate the message.

Sin the Cause of Tribulation not Philosophy

In passing it should be noted that Schaeffer gives the impression that our troubles are due toerrors in philosophy. This obscures the hegemony of sin in causing dishonour to God andmisery to man. Erroneous philosophies are but one fruit of sin, not the radical cause of it. Itis the Bible, more than any other book, which teaches us fully concerning sin. It is butcommon sense that we should learn from there what should be known and preached in thatregard. The knowledge of the errors of the day has its place, but such knowledge clearly mustbe subordinated to scripture knowledge.

19

The Priority of the Gospel and Experimental Preaching

A preoccupation with philosophy could distract us from giving due place to preaching the onething needful, ‘Jesus Christ and him crucified’, which is the principal concern of the Christianteacher. Further, as Robert Traill in a former day, and Cornelis Pronk in our own day haverecommended, an essential element in the cure of the evils of this preoccupation is found insound experimental preaching. This also must not be neglected, and has a priority over theexamination of philosophy and its errors. When dealing practically in preaching we mustbear in mind that, as there are various philosophies, so there is variety amongst the people.They are not all enthralled by existentialism. Some are ritualists, others are atheists,agnostics, pantheists, nominal evangelicals etc. It is the peculiar tendency of Kuyperianism,as it is expressed today, to obscure this variety, by lumping all together as one autonomousman.

In fairness to Schaeffer it must be pointed out that he does recognise some variety withincongregations and recommends that “Those who care nothing about the new problems are yetto be fed and shepherded.” The God Who is There, page 164.

PRE-EVANGELISM

The subject of pre-evangelism is another area of disagreement we have with Schaeffer. Hesays, “The truth that we let in first is not a dogmatic statement of the truth of the Scripturesbut the truth of the external world and the truth of what man himself is. This is what showshim his need. The Scriptures then show him the nature of his lostness and the answer to it.This, I am convinced, is the true order for our apologetics in the second half of the twentiethcentury for man living under the line of despair.” The God Who is There, p.128. Simplystated, he says, “We must never forget that the first part of the Gospel is not ‘Accept Christ asSaviour’, but ‘God is there’.” Ibid. page 1329

A Similar Approach from Sydney

A method similar to this has been advocated by some evangelicals in the Anglican Diocese ofSydney, and I am aware of evidence that Schaeffer’s doctrine has provided a stimulus tothem. They have said, ‘We must preach God, or God in Christ, as Creator and King, withman as rebel, before we teach Christ as Redeemer by the cross.’ They would exhort men torepent on this basis, and either imply, or frankly assert, that the message of the cross isunnecessary to bring men to conversion. Christ’s name might be used, but He is to be setforth as King, and His priestly office actively neglected in evangelism10. The suggestion isthat the cross is a doctrine to be taught at a later stage, after a person is saved.

9 Here let us mark how Schaeffer contradicts Paul, who said, “For I delivered unto you first of all that which Ialso received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures.” 1 Corinthians 15:3. (Emphasismine).10 The folly of this policy was observed long ago by Blaise Pascal, in 1656: “Thus are they (the Jesuits) preparedfor all sorts of persons, and so ready are they to suit the supply to the demand (emphasis mine) that, when theyhappen to be in any part of the world where the doctrine of a crucified God is accounted foolishness, they

20

An attempt has been made, by preachers in this mould, to justify such a method fromscripture. A difference has been observed between Paul’s preaching to the Jews, eg. in Acts13:16ff and his preaching to the Gentiles on Mars hill, in Acts 17:22ff. It is said that Paulpresupposes Jewish ideas of sacrifice and redemption in speaking with the Jews, but did notdo so with the Gentiles. Because modern man is so ignorant of scriptural matters, andinfected with practical atheism, he is in the same position as the ancient Greeks, and shouldbe spoken to accordingly.

The similarity to Schaeffer is fairly clear. There is the same emphasis on modern man’sspiritual ignorance, and the use of this principle in so determining the content of the messagethat the cross is set aside from being the spearhead of evangelism, a place it held in the oldpreaching. Thus these others disparage the old preaching too, as Schaeffer does. Perhapsthere is a difference worth noticing—Schaeffer at least allows the cross a subordinate role inevangelism, whereas the Sydney group tend to leave the cross out of evangelism. We are notsatisfied with either of these views.

Answers

1. The question is raised again, what should determine the preaching matter, the scriptures,or the special condition of the people? I have said that some have tried to justify their methodfrom the Acts of the Apostles. However I have not noticed Schaeffer doing so. He arguesfrom his personal opinions concerning man, not scripture. A concern for people’sbackground is obviously right, but it cannot be the ruling principle determining what is to bepreached.

2. Schaeffer’s method proceeds from a wrong assumption, that ‘non-Christians have rejectedthe first truths of religion.’ Therefore, he concludes, they need first a course of pre-evangelism in apologetic doctrines so that they might learn ‘God is there’. This is not whatPaul teaches. He says that non-Christians already know that ‘God is there’, telling theGreeks, “In him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poetshave said, For we are also his offspring.” Acts 17:28 (emphasis mine). Of course this cuts tothe heart of Kuyperian theory. Kuyperians either reject, or equivocate over the question ofwhether non-Christians are able to properly acknowledge God’s existence, from consideringthe things that are made. Our position is that of the traditional apologetic, affirmed in theearlier conservative evangelical theology, which is quite consonant with Paul’s remarks tothis effect. As Thomas Watson says, “We know that there is a God by his works, and this isso evident a demonstration of a Godhead, that the most atheistical spirits, when they haveconsidered these works, have been forced to acknowledge some wise and supreme maker ofthese things; as is reported of Galen and others.” A Body of Divinity, page 39, Banner ofTruth, 1965.

Thus, there is a difference between pointing to the first truths of religion already known bynon-Christians, while preaching the gospel and a formal pre-evangelism covering first truths,on the erroneous assumption that they are not known, during which the gospel of Christ

suppress the offence of the cross and preach only a glorious and not a suffering Jesus Christ.” In Letter V of‘The Provincial Letters’, in Great Books of the Western World, Volume 33, PASCAL, page 28, The Universityof Chicago, 1952.

21

crucified is withheld. This was not Paul’s way, for he says, “I kept back nothing that wasprofitable to you, but have showed you, and have taught you publicly, and from house tohouse, testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God, and faithtoward our Lord Jesus Christ.” Acts 20:20-21.3. In Acts 17 Paul does notice the truths of natural theology held by the Greeks and rebukestheir special sin of idolatry. However, if they are to be saved, he must move on, to the truthsof scripture ‘necessary unto salvation’. The limited knowledge, ‘God is there’ alreadypossessed, does not save. Hence we find him, in the same sermon, speaking of theresurrection, repentance, and the coming judgement of the world by Christ. It could be justlyargued that the church’s primary role is to proclaim the doctrines necessary unto salvation,and that formal apologetics are of secondary importance, though by no means to be neglected.

4. Thus the correct position is not Schaeffer’s, that the teaching of what we call the truths ofnatural theology should be first, and Christ and the cross later. To those who use Paul’spreaching in Acts to justify a postponement of preaching Christ crucified, I would say that itis too narrow a view to found the whole approach to modern man on what Paul said to theGreeks on Mars Hill. This sermon seems to have been interrupted anyway, as soon as Paulspoke of the resurrection.

The settling of this question is so important that we find it clearly answered in scripture: “Forthe Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: but we preach Christ crucified, tothe Jews a stumbling block, and to the Greeks foolishness; but to them which are called, bothJews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishnessof God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.” 1 Corinthians1:22-24. Here we see that both Jews and Greeks, for different reasons, are prejudiced againstthe doctrine of the cross. Contrary to Schaeffer, who says, ‘The truth we let in first is not adogmatic statement of the truth of the scriptures’, and, ‘the first part of the gospel is not,Accept Christ as Saviour’, Paul asserts that ‘Christ crucified’ is the doctrine to be preachedfirst. Also, neither the Jewish nor the Greek prejudices, both crying at the cross, have anypower to make us modify the message, i.e. change either the priorities or terms of itspresentation. This is because it is ‘the power of God, and the wisdom of God’, no smallconsiderations.

5. We must not fail to notice that the gospel does not, in the nature of things, need to bepreceded by a special season of so-called apologetic pre-evangelism. This because it carriesits own self-evidencing light: “We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto youdo well that you take heed, as to a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawn, and theday star arise in your hearts.” 2 Peter 1:19.

6. Instruction in the whole scripture framework is mandatory: “For whatsoever things werewritten aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of thescriptures might have hope.” Romans 15:4. Of himself Paul said, “I have not shunned todeclare to you all the counsel of God.” Acts 20:27. In our day the Bible is easily obtained andcan be read fairly promptly to find out the background knowledge essential to a fullappreciation of God’s purpose for mankind. Christian friends can assist in the acquiring ofthis knowledge, and preachers can pay attention to it when presenting the gospel. Thus theproblem of inadequate knowledge can be overcome without the need to exalt apologetics overthe gospel.

22

7. To those who would teach that preaching Christ as King is sufficient to lead men tosalvation, it should be pointed out that when we are exhorted ‘To repent and believe the-gospel’ we are to turn to and trust in Christ in all His three offices, Prophet, Priest and King.Therefore all these aspects of His person are proper and imperative subjects in preaching tothe lost. This includes the cross, which has first place.

8. Thus we would free the presentation of Jesus Christ and him crucified from the fetters ofpre-evangelism. We are happy to notice the truths of natural theology in parallel with thegospel, in the proportions recommended by the scripture. The cross has the priority, “Godforbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Galatians 6:14. Seealso, John 3:14-15, 12:32 cf. verse 20, 1 Corinthians 2:2, and Galatians 3:l.

A Contradictory Element

We should note here again the contradictory element in Schaeffer’s thesis, which is alsoapparent in Van Til. They had begun by telling us that the fall had so affected the intellectthat human knowledge outside of Christ was in some way invalidated: “In Aquinas’s view thewill of man was fallen, but the intellect was not. From this incomplete view of the Biblicalfall flowed all the subsequent difficulties.” Escape from Reason, page 11. Kuyper said, asWarfield observed, if the intellect of the unbeliever is so incompetent, what is the point oftrying to reason with him about the first truths of religion, which is the function ofapologetics. It appears that Warfield’s criticism of Kuyper so affected Van Til, that he (VanTil) has tried to find a place for apologetics. Schaeffer has a passion for apologetics, giving ita priority over the gospel, in the hope of aiding the rescue of modern man, lost and on thebrink of despair. But the validity of apologetics depends upon the ability of man’s intellect toperceive the argument. Van Til has produced a complex, and we would say contradictoryanswer to cope with this dilemma in their position. He says the non-Christian receives thetruth, but distorts and suppresses it beyond recognition; he talks about them ‘knowing deepdown’ what is true and yet not knowing.

We see no difficulty, believing that the rational faculty in man is able to perceive the truth ofthe first principles of religion, and to acknowledge their truth with conviction, “Thoubelievest there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.” James 2:19.Certainly prejudice blinds some in these matters, but not all, and the reason in all may see.

Schaeffer and Van Til carry the inability of the intellect into all fields of knowledge. Wemight say to Schaeffer, if non-Christian philosophy is so wrong, how can it be a satisfactoryvehicle for the transmission of unchanging truth?

Schaeffer Does Preach the Gospel

Though he does not give it first priority, Schaeffer does preach the gospel. In The God Whois There, pages 135-136, he gives an extract of some length from Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progressto this effect. As far as we are concerned, this is heartily to be commended, and it is put inthe good old way. The Sadducee leaven he has mixed with it doesn’t help however.

23

THE CONDITION OF THE UNCONVERTED

Schaeffer advances a personal view of the condition of the unconverted, and suggests thatthis appreciation of his is a major factor determining how we should lead modern man tosalvation. His theory is: “Every man is somewhere along the line between the real world andthe logical conclusion of his non-Christian presuppositions. Every person feels the pull oftwo inconsistencies, the pull towards the real world and the pull towards the logic of hissystem. He may let the pendulum swing back and forth between them, but he cannot live inboth places at once.” The God Who is There, page 122. He says that men are thus undertension spiritually, and our exploitation of this tension will facilitate their conversion.

What does Scripture Say, and Heathen Testimony

Again, we would prefer a scriptural account of the state of man first. It is reasonable then tosubordinate to the scriptural exposition testimonies from men, including the unconverted,agreeable to scripture, and in plain language. “Even Plato declared the result of hisobservations on man, to be a conviction that evil was hereditary in his nature, from which,through ignorance of the true remedy, he laments that no refuge can be discovered. ‘I haveheard’, says this philosopher, ‘from wise men, that we are dead, and our body is atomb’.........” The Life of Rowland Hill, by Edwin Sidney, page 435, Baldwin and Craddock,1834. Paul too acknowledged this principle, giving credence to our doctrine of thecompetence of the light of nature, when he spoke to the Athenians and Corinthians, and toTitus of the Cretians. But this differs from Schaeffer’s use of non-Christian testimony.Schaeffer has constructed a whole system of preaching the gospel, as against an incidentalsubordinate reference to heathen testimony, on the basis of his own somewhat questionableexposition of the history of the development of errors in philosophy.

Schaeffer’s View of Sin too Narrow

Schaeffer’s analysis is too simple. There is more to sin than the problem he notices. Further,it may be questioned whether men generally are under tension spiritually. It is possible thatmen may be so blinded, hardened of heart, and past feeling, that they are able to live with allsorts of contradictions without tension, in a false peace. To suggest that exploiting thistension can facilitate in any special way the conversion of modern man smacks ofArminianism. This is because such a doctrine affirms that there is something in man, which,if handled in the right way, will substantially assist his conversion.

The preacher, using scripture and cogent reasons, may deal with spiritual tension where itexists. Such tension is not an overriding principle, but rather one facet of sin or its effects,which may be of greater or lesser importance in particular cases.

What Schaeffer provides is a doctrine of sin, dressed in his own personal philosophicalexposition; the Bible is barely allowed to follow after. The correct procedure would be toexplain in plain terms, not philosophical dialect, from scripture, the doctrine of sin, fitting itto man’s circumstances today, which are not as different from the past as Schaeffer asserts.

24

The Past Not so Different

The condition of England in the eighteenth century at the time of the Evangelical Awakeningfor example, should be well known: “There is indeed ample proof of widespread scepticismboth within and outside the church, much ignorance of the Bible amongst the clergy, andconsiderable scepticism and disbelief both amongst the higher ranks of society and alsoamongst the people in general. In other words the Wesley brothers and Whitefield could nothave relied on a naive and prompt agreement with everything they said, as is often argued.”‘John Wesley and the Biblical Criticism of his Day’, by Victor Budgen, in The Banner ofTruth Magazine, Nos. 154-155, July/August, 1976, page 55, (emphasis mine). Thisjudgement is supported by Bishop Butler, who said in 1736, “It is come, I know not how, tobe taken for granted, by many persons, that Christianity is not so much a subject for inquiry;but that it is, now at length, discovered to be fictitious.” The Analogy of Religion, Preface.

Thus Schaeffer’s historical judgement and his practical recommendations both fall to theground. Men, more than 200 years ago, were no more disposed than they are now to receivescripture truth. The ministers of the Evangelical Awakening opposed scepticism with plainBible teaching, not with a gospel fashioned according to man’s wisdom, and had considerablesuccess to the glory of God. Today’s scepticism may be dealt with similarly.

CHRISTIANITY AND CULTURE

Kuyperians emphasise cultural involvement. Schaeffer’s concurrence with this has beennoted above, on page 13. We do not accept this, and hold that scripture does not set forth anyspecial commission for the churches and believers to erect a peculiar Christian culturemanifest as distinct Christian disciplines of learning, and separate Christian institutions.

Our Position

Unlike the Kuyperians, the scriptures draw a strong line between heavenly and earthly things:“Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth.” Colossians 3:2, and, “Formany walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are theenemies of the cross of Christ: whose end is destruction, whose God is their belly, and whoseglory is their shame, who mind earthly things.” Philippians 3:18-20.

We are not to be preoccupied with earthly concerns, but to give our heart first and foremost toour heavenly obligations. Though we are ‘in the world’, we are not to be ‘of the world’.Obviously we do not neglect the concerns of this life; we have moral obligations to dischargein this sphere. Asceticism too, i.e. religious abstinence from lawful creature comforts, iscondemned by scripture: “For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if itbe received with thanksgiving: for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.” 1 Timothy4:4-5.

The principle is that we are to use these things temperately, “And they that use this world, asnot abusing it: for the fashion of this world passes away.” 1 Corinthians 7:31. We are warned

25

not to love the world, “If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.” 1John 2:1-5.

The Heavenly and Earthly Spheres Merged

Thus we distinguish the heavenly and earthly spheres, subordinating the latter to the former.Kuyperians would have us confuse these two spheres in a type of unity in which thedistinction of the one from the other is lost. In Schaeffer’s deceptive words, “What theReformation tells us, therefore, is that God has spoken in the Scriptures concerning both theupstairs and the downstairs (he means heavenly and earthly respectively)….....Therefore theyhad a real unity of knowledge. They simply did not have the Renaissance problem of natureand grace! They had a real unity....….on the basis of what God had revealed in both areas.”Escape from Reason, page 23.

Despite the Kuyperian wish, the two spheres must be distinguished. Shaeffer himself talks of‘both areas’. In passing we protest against the assertion that the Reformers support theKuyperian position. Calvin said, “It may therefore be proper, in order to make it moremanifest how far our ability extends in regard to these two classes of objects, to draw adistinction between them. The distinction is, that we have one kind of intelligence of earthlythings, and another of heavenly things. By earthly things, I mean those which relate not toGod and his kingdom, to true righteousness and future blessedness, but have some connectionwith the present life and are in a manner confined within its boundaries.” Institutes ofReligion, Beveridge Edition, Volume l, page 234, James Clarke, 1962. Kuyperianism wasnot a chief doctrine of Calvin, as Schaeffer asserts. Calvin was opposed to its main tenets! Ifthis is so, Kuyperians would do well to find out what Calvin’s chief doctrines were, becausehe certainly was a man who had something to say.

If the distinction is removed then both areas merge. Subordination of earthly pursuitsbecomes virtually impossible, and they are given a priority approaching or equal to that ofheavenly concerns. Cornelis Pronk of course has shown us that this precisely is the tendencyof Kuyperianism. See the Banner of Truth Magazine, Nos. 154-155, July/August, 1976, page5. The same drift is evident in Schaeffer.

Two Commandments

That there is a distinction is reflected in the fact that there are two tables of the law, a first anda second commandment. One respecting duty to God who is above, and the other respectingduty to man who is below.

John Flavel has brought out the distinction nicely in his exposition of the first question in theThe Westminster Shorter Catechism: “What is the chief end of man? Answer: Man’s chiefend is to glorify God, and enjoy him for ever. Seeing a chief supposes an inferior end; whatis that inferior end for which man was made? Answer: It is prudently, soberly, andmercifully, to govern, use, and dispose of other creatures in the earth, sea, and air, over whichGod gave men the dominion; Genesis 1:26……….So Psalm 8:6. What then is to be thought,of those men, who being wholly intent upon inferior things, forget and neglect their principalend? Answer: They are dead whilst they live; 1 Timothy 5:6........They have their portion in

26

this life; Psalm 17:14.......…and their end is destruction; Philippians 3:19.11 Works, Volume6, page 141, Banner of Truth, 1968.

So Christians are to fulfil their earthly callings where they are. They are not to seek acloistered existence in some special Christian institution, separate from society at large, in thefashion of Roman Catholic monasticism. If Christians have special abilities in the arts thenthey are at liberty to exercise these, but not as though it were some special Christian thrustinto society. The use of such gifts must be seen to be subordinate to the fulfilment ofheavenly responsibilities.

The Cultural Skills of Non-Christians

Christians do not have a prerogative on ability in earthly concerns. Of old it was recognisedfor example that the Sidonians, who were not of the children of Israel, were especially giftedwoodworkers. Solomon said of them, “there is not among us any that can skill to hew timberlike unto the Sidonians.” 1 Kings 5:6.

Schaeffer not only opposes the nature-grace distinction as such, but as expected, he suggeststhat non-Christian work in earthly things is in some way invalid. “This (Schaeffer’s view ofReformation doctrine) did not mean there was no freedom for art and science. It was quitethe opposite; there was now possible true freedom within the revealed form..........As we shallsee, whenever art or science has tried to be autonomous (i.e. act outside of scriptureauthority), a certain principle has always manifested itself—nature eats up grace, and thus artand science themselves soon began to be meaningless.” Escape from Reason, pages 23-24.

It is worth observing firstly, the clericalistic overtones in their view of ‘true freedom withinthe revealed form’. Secondly, if nature does ‘eat up’ grace, then this is an abuse, it is not, asSchaeffer teaches, an inevitable consequence of the distinction.

Calvin is so far from teaching that ‘nature eats up grace, and thus art and science themselvessoon began to be meaningless’, that he says, “But if the Lord has been pleased to assist us bythe work and ministry of the ungodly in physics, dialectics, mathematics, and other similarsciences, let us avail ourselves of it, lest, by neglecting the gifts of God spontaneously offeredto us, we be justly punished for our sloth.” Institutes of Religion, Volume l, pages 236-237.

Genius and Cultural Success

In considering the gifts of composition and creativity in art, music and fictional literatureDabney’s comments upon the relationship of genius to real success in these pursuits, areworth bearing in mind. See his Discussions, Volume 2, pages 158-159, Banner of Truth,1967. If his contention is true, then, apart from the fact that it may be non-Christians whopossess these gifts anyway, there may be very few Christians indeed who could take up theseoccupations. If they were so endowed they may better employ their gifts in direct service ofChrist, in spiritual matters. In the absence of genius, a moderate recreational use of such giftsis not precluded. Religious art, pictorial and sculptured, is of course excluded—AbrahamKuyper recognises this point too.

27

The Theatre and Poor Literature

A special question is raised concerning the stage, and its modern extension the movie featurefilm. Historically, Christians in the Augustino-Calvinist or conservative evangelical traditionhave considered these art forms evil in themselves. Augustine denounces the stage in hiswork, The City of God, Book 1, Chapters xxx-xxxi, and Book 2, Chapter viii. The Puritanobjection to this form of culture is well known11.

We would accept the acting out of parables by the prophets, and the imitation of adult rolesby children. However, we object strongly to formal play acting by adults. To imitate anotherman, as one must do in acting, involves patterning oneself after a non-Christian usually, andperhaps a Christian rarely. In either case a Christian could not do this conscientiously. AsCharles Spurgeon observes, there is a sign in the theatre labelled ‘To the Pit’. There is aninevitable momentum downwards morally, in the acting world. Though this is obvious in ourday, it has been clearly observed in earlier times. Conservative evangelicalism always used toassert this point.

So we would not discuss the theatre as Schaeffer does, in The God Who is There, pages 41ff.He does not recognise its inherently evil character. Our exhortation would be that menforsake these places of iniquity. The same may be said of poor literature, which Schaefferalso considers, again not quite in the way we would.

No Flattery Intended

Discussion of the philosophical message portrayed in corrupted modern culture should not beallowed to suggest that a cloak of respectability covers the evil, thus detracting from the plainimmorality of such culture. Further, in talking of these evils we must remember Paul’scaveat, that “…..it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret.”Ephesians 5:12. Schaeffer acknowledges such things can ‘soil you’. However, we wouldprefer a straight denunciation, in scriptural terms, of the evil committed, and a plainindication that no flattery is intended, if the philosophical niceties of these people areexamined. We reject any intimate acquaintance with plainly described sin, as seen in thetheatre and much literature. “Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, butrather reprove them.” Ephesians: 5:11.

11 As one very notable example of this take the following from Matthew Henry, “That which is got by suchemployments as are not lawful, or not becoming Christians, such as serve to feed pride and luxury, that which isgot by gaming or by the stage, may as truly be said to be gotten by vanity as that which is gotten by fraud andlying, and will be diminished. De male quæsitis vix gaudet tertius hæres—Ill-gotten wealth will scarcely beenjoyed by the third generation.” Comment upon “Wealth gotten by vanity shall be diminished.” Proverbs13:11, in his Commentary, Volume 3, page 863, Revell. Many modern evangelical Christians like FrancisSchaeffer see the stage as harmless and acceptable entertainment, and they might find this comment of MatthewHenry's surprising. I have produced a paper on this matter entitled A DISCUSSION OF THE THE ACTINGQUESTION, which includes a comprehensive Bibliography on the subject authored by reliable Christianministers, together with suitable quotations from some of them.

28

A Humanistic Doctrine of Education

A brief notice of a point from Schaeffer concerning education is worth consideration. Hesays, “Today we have a weakness in our educational process in failing to understand thenatural associations between the disciplines. We tend to study all our disciplines in unrelatedparallel lines. This tends to be true in both Christian and secular education.........…We havestudied our exegesis as exegesis, our theology as theology, our philosophy as philosophy; westudy something about art as art; we study music as music, without understanding that theseare things of man, and the things of man are not unrelated parallel lines.” Escape fromReason, page 12.

It is interesting to note that both Kuyperian Christian educationists, and humanisteducationists in what they call ‘General Studies’, teach this principle. They both wish tomerge disciplines, conducting education towards a unified religious principle. We wouldkeep the religious and secular fields distinct, holding forth their mutual responsibilities.Within both spheres there are distinct disciplines. Schaeffer should be careful that he doesnot join Hegel in attempting to reject the law of contradiction, in this case as it applies toeducational disciplines and nature-grace, merging ‘all difference...…..in absoluteindifference—all plurality in absolute unity.’ See Appendix I below. Doubtless he would saythat he is not seeking an absolute unity, however the unifying tendency is definitely there, andI believe it should be pointed out12. We are very concerned that theology and philosophy bedistinguished properly from each other,

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 withKuyperianism. I believe that the various educational and cultural disciplines have the task ofdescribing and portraying things as they are. There is some liberty for the fancy13, but even inthe exercise of this, the object aimed at should be an accurate representation of what is, eventhough it might be metaphoric or symbolic, or the production of form in art, or harmony inmusic in a manner which is pleasing aesthetically, according to the constitution of man’snature. 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 beenmost 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 hecould make a statue like that, so utterly free from exaggeration and point, so exactly like areal man or woman.....….He dreams not that the harmony and truth to nature, the absence ofexaggeration, and the softened unity and propriety of the statue are just the qualities which itis most difficult to produce......…Thus, also, to draw an imaginary man, like nature in hisfeelings and his conduct, is the hardest task of literary genius, although the picture, whenfinished, may seem so simple and easy.” Discussions, Volume 2, by Robert Dabney, page

12 Van Til manifests this tendency to a more startling degree.13 The fancy should be distinguished from the imagination, the latter being properly the faculty which considerspossibilities that may fall out, particularly in the context of choosing appropriate courses of action.

29

159. Dabney highlights both the goal of natural representation, and the difficulty of achievingit.

God gave man dominion over the earth, and thus man has some autonomy, according to thelight of nature, in this realm, contrary to Kuyperianism. Despite the herd of impostors, therehave 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, andman’s misery unreconciled to God. This because we may ascend to a consideration of Godby reflecting upon earthly matters. However, these things are quite distinct from the way ofreconciliation, 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 religiousmessage, either humanist or Christian. Certainly humanists have peddled their ideas througheducation and cultural forms, as Schaeffer has shown. But this is to abuse both education andculture. 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. Kuyperwas consistent with his scheme and became Prime Minister of Holland. We don’t deny thatChristians should consider political principles and issues seasonably. On occasion Christiansmay 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. Thelegitimacy of heathen governments, and our subordination to them for conscience sake, is aclear 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 JohnNewton, “For my part, I have no temptation to turn politician, and much less to inflame aparty in these times………I attempt to turn my people’s eyes from instruments to God. I amcontinually 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 shouldundoubtedly be faithful to his calling, and endeavour by all lawful methods to transmit ourprivileges to posterity.........(otherwise) There are enough people to make a noise aboutpolitical matters, who do not know how to employ their time to better purpose. Our Lord’skingdom is not of this world; and most of his people may do their country much moreessential service by pleading for it in prayer, than by finding fault with things which they haveno power to alter.” Letters, page 64-65, Banner of Truth, 1965. This runs counter to thespirit of Kuyperianism. Let us remind ourselves that we are “strangers and pilgrims on theearth.” Hebrews 11:13.

30

APPENDIX I—PRESUPPOSITIONS

Schaeffer defines the word presupposition in his glossary as: “A belief or theory which isassumed before the next step in logic is developed. Such a prior postulate often consciouslyor 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 examineSchaeffer’s usage of the term, and Cornelius Van Til’s, Schaeffer’s presumed source of theprinciple, 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 Ait is not non-A”. The God Who is There, page 13. And, 2. The law of cause. Ibid. p.19. Hewould call these two, presuppositions of men in general before the dates he stated (see above,in this paper on page 14), 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 aword axioms. As such they should not be included with theories, as they are, in the loosermore comprehensive definition from his glossary. Theories are not simple first truths they aremore elaborate ideas, voluntarily articulated from discursive reasoning, they are not fixedinvoluntary laws of thought like axioms. Whereas axiomatic principles are self-evidenttruths, it remains a question whether theories are true or not.

It is quite legitimate to acknowledge that axiomatic laws of thought are applied a priori14 inreasoning. It is completely incorrect to suggest that it is equally legitimate to apply theoriesin the same way, and that all human reasoning is bound to do this, which is a cornerstone ofmodern Kuyperianism, and humanism for that matter.

Schaeffer remarks of men, who he says held the two axioms he notices, i.e. the law ofcontradiction 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 actedupon” them. Ibid. page 19. He does this to hold up the ridiculous Kuyperian principle thathuman reason, outside the confines of Kuyperianism, cannot and never has functionedvalidly. But these axioms, as unchangeable laws of thought ingrained in human nature werelegitimately held, and still are, because they are necessary truths. They are not somethingwhich men can 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, forvarious 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 subjectand object—no contrast of knowledge and existence; all difference is lost in absolute

14 There have been those that have denied that the truths called first truths are primary. They have said that theseconcepts are derived from experience. Those who do this are termed sensualists, the modern advocates beingthe logical positivists.

31

indifference—all plurality in absolute unity. The intuition itself, reason and the absolute areidentical.” Writings of Thornwell, Volume 3, page 150. Thornwell comments, “Butconsistency 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 ofany existence, not even my own; I, myself, know nothing, and am nothing. Images thereare—they constitute all that apparently exists......I, myself, am one of these images; nay I amnot even thus much, but only a confused image of images.” Ibid. Thus men cannot escapethe first truths of reason; these principles are a part of their nature. If they deny them, thenthey are lost in confusion.

It is only fair to say that Schaeffer has discussed with some sensitivity the difficulties menhave got into in denying these principles. But he has not taught, as he should have, that theseprinciples are unchangeable laws of thought, inherent in man’s rational faculty. Schaeffer'sfailure to see them as a part of man’s nature has also led him, as indicated earlier in thispaper, to overestimate the readiness of ordinary men to give up these doctrines. Really, thenonsense 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 totenaciously by men which contradict sound reason or the truths of scripture, should be calledprejudices and not presuppositions, because: 1. Prejudice implies an abuse of reason, whichthe bland term presupposition does not, and that men might know better. And, 2. All menhold 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 nowfor us, more than ever before, a presuppositional apologetic is imperative”, The God Who isThere, page 14, should be disregarded.

32

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 of philosophy. Ibelieve that Schaeffer has misrepresented him. Schaeffer makes the following quotation fromBacon’s Novum Organum: “Man by the Fall fell at the same time from his state of innocenceand from his dominion over nature. Both of these losses, however can even in this life be insome 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 asscience (and art as art) was understood to be, in the best sense, a religious activity. Notice inthe quotation the fact that Francis Bacon did not see science as autonomous, for it was placedwithin the revelation of the scriptures at the point of the Fall.” Ibid.

Schaeffer’s interpretation is unjustified. Even in the quotation given, Bacon has distinguishedreligious activity from the arts and the sciences; so Schaeffer has insufficient ground to saythat Bacon calls the arts and sciences ‘religious activities’. We are thankful that Baconacknowledges the truth of scripture, but it is equally clear that Bacon held to the system thatSchaeffer opposes. For example, the nature-grace distinction is asserted by him. Thus Baconcommended, in James I of England, “a rare conjunction, as well of divine and sacredliterature, 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., page11, 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 toKuyperianism: “So, for instance, Francis Bacon, whose sole interest was to make man king ofthe universe by means of science, nevertheless seeks for ‘divine assistance’ and prays withconfidence ‘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 andReformed, 1970. Van Til’s remarks are an outrageous misrepresentation of Bacon, eventhough 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) apersonal 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 aconquest in the world of matter or of mind which has not been won by the spirit of theinductive philosophy. It has explored every nook and corner of nature; it has trusted tonothing but its eyes and ears, and those eternal laws of thought which constitute the forms ofknowledge. It has found order, law, a plan; it has discovered design, the operations ofintelligence and will, and penetrated beyond nature to nature’s God, as the author and finisherof all. It has seen and known.” Writings of Thornwell, Volume 1, page 502. We are back tocommon sense and away from the vagaries of Kuyperianism.

33

SUMMARY

Gospel truth is corrupted first by accommodating the statement of its doctrines to the popularhuman 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 thedifference between the Dutch and British/American Reformed theologians, preferring theformer. His link with that school is Van Til. Differences are evident between the twohowever. Both equivocate over whether there is common ground with non-Christians. Hishistory 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 onobjective truth. However, there is more to philosophy than he indicates, and we object to hisasserting scripture truth in human dialectical forms. The Bible is not the primary source ofhis 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 notneed sharpening with human philosophy. Ministers are Christ’s ambassadors, and cannotchange 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 theformer. Schaeffer advocates a pre-evangelism, relegating the cross to second place, when itused to be the spearhead of evangelism. From scripture we argue that Christ crucified stillholds pride of place in the Christian message. If non-Christians are intellectuallyincompetent, as Schaeffer and Van Til assert, how can they understand anything preached tothem? If non-Christian philosophy is wrong, why use it to sharpen the gospel? Schaeffertalks of a tension in modern man, which he would use to determine gospel application. Weprefer scripture’s analysis of man’s condition. Scepticism and wickedness have been presentbefore, and the old preaching coped to the glory of God. Kuyperians, including Schaeffer,emphasise cultural involvement and obscure the heavenly-earthly distinction, tending to giveeach sphere equal priority, contrary to scripture. Calvin is with us. There are two tables ofthe law, man has a chief and a lesser end in accord with this. A separate Christian culturesounds monastic. Non-Christians possess secular skills; this is recognised by Calvin. Geniusis required for real success in cultural pursuits, thus limiting these to a few, in terms of publicimpact, 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 evilassociated with modern philosophy should not be flattered. Schaeffer talks of mergingeducational disciplines, as humanists do. Educational, cultural and religious disciplines havedifferent functions and should be distinguished. Education and culture are not vehicles for areligious 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 topray for our country.